Dispatch
charter-ietf-dispatch-03

• Ready for external review (02-00)
• Approve (02-02)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) Yes

I think this is ready to progress to external review. However, I invite people to pay attention to the thread that Harald started on the dispatch process in general: 

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-kiAbvZDTCLets4szoXmaCIgrs4

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Given this,

"Options for handling new work include:

"- By agreement with ART ADs, processing simple documents."

and this: 

"The DISPATCH WG will not do any
protocol work. Specifically, DISPATCH will always opt to find a location
for technical work; the only work that DISPATCH is not required to
delegate (or defer, or reject) is administrative work such as IANA
actions."

If these are describing the same thing, I'd suggest replacing "simple" with "administrative", which I'm reading as more restrictive. Having "simple" being undefined in this context seems vulnerable to mischief ("of course, my document is simple, so it's within charter, right?").

If they aren't describing the same thing, I'd suggest defining "simple".

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

I received the necessary clarifications from both Barry and Ben during the IESG telechat. Thanks, Benoit
=============================================================================


(*)  Disclaimer: I've not been following RAI/ART work in the IETF and I don't know whether the DISPATCH process has been efficient or not. So I'll mainly make observations.

I understand Harald's point, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-kiAbvZDTCLets4szoXmaCIgrs4,
When I read the charter, it's like an extra procedure, specific to ART. For example, if I want a BoF, I must first go to DISPATCH to get their approval? Same thing for AD-sponsored document?

    The Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for new
    work in the ART area and identify, or help create, an appropriate venue
    for the work.

Btw, no change here: this sentence is basically unchanged compared to the previous charter.

In the past, I was told that DISPATCH was similar to the OPSAWG WG.
Let me observe it's not. "The DISPATCH WG will not do any protocol work", while OPSAWG might.
From the OPSAWG charter:

    The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
    the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
    management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group
    and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The OPSAWG
    will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF.

Obviously, redirecting work to existing WGs is also an OPSAWG task.
And when the work is substantial, a new WG can even be created. Ex: EMAN  in the past

I prefer the OPSAWG approach (*).

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

A friendly amendment, if you're up for accepting it: I think a
change along these lines would better reflect what we hope
folks will be doing:

OLD:

5. Ensuring that the new work considers security and privacy.

NEW:

5. Ensuring that the new work considers and aims to improve
security and privacy.

My reason is that while we definitely do want to consider
security and privacy, I think we do have consensus to try to
make those better whenever we can, and to never just say
"yeah, we thought about it, but we're doing nothing." I think
it may be better if we can say that the DISPATCH charter
calls for improvement to handle cases where folks are a
bit reluctant to change a piece of work they bring to the
IETF that hasn't done such a good job on security or 
privacy.

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection