SIDR Operations
charter-ietf-sidrops-01

1. "SIDR operational and deployment issues with Interdomain Routing Protocols are the primary responsibility of the IDR working group.  The sidr-ops Working Group may provide input to that group, as needed, and cooperate with that group in reviewing solutions to SIDR operational and deployment problems."

Yes.  Depending on what the issue is, grow should be involved too.  Mention of grow would be nice.

2. "Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the Working Group if there is a substantial expression of interest from the community and if the work (for example protocol maintenance clearly does not fit elsewhere in the IETF."

Which protocol are you talking about?

BGPSEC, which is an extension to BGP, should be the responsibility of idr.  In the worst case, it shouldn't be changed without close coordination with idr.  

Other protocols such as the rtr-to-rpki protocol, or the delta protocol don't clearly fit elsewhere and are only really used for sidr, so that is ok.

+1 on Spencer's suggestion for first sentence. I'm interested in Joel's
response to Jari's proposed change to the second sentence as my
interpretation of the work was to avoid two separate networks
(i.e. keep the original sentence).

I had difficulty parsing the 3rd sentence:
sidrops works to ensure as secure a routing system as possible,
through encouraged deployment of the SIDR technologies.
Suggest:
Sidrops is responsible for encouraging deployment of the
SIDR technologies while ensuring as secure of a global
routing system, as possible, during the transition.

Also difficult parsing the sentence:
"In the space of sidr-ops, the term operators will encompass more
than just network operators: CA Operators, Regional/National and
Local Internet Registries, Relying Party software developers as well
as the research/measurement community all have relevant
operational experience or insight that this working group will
consider in its work."
Suggest:
In the space of sidrops, the term operators will encompass a range
of operational experience: Network Operators, CA Operators,
Regional/National and Local Internet Registries, Relying Party
software developers, as well as the research/measurement
community, all have relevant operational experience or insight
that this working group will consider in its work.

"1. Solicit input from all operators"  (and "2") is probably
overzealous, how about:
"Solicit input from a range of operators"

This work should definitely go forward!

A couple of text suggestions though:

Isn't this a potentially too simple description:

  The global deployment of RPKI, Origin Validation of BGP announcements
  and BGPSEC, collectively called SIDR, is underway, creating an Internet
  Routing System consisting of SIDR-aware and non-SIDR-aware networks.
  This deployment must be properly handled to avoid the division of
  the Internet into separate networks.

Isn't the issue more complicated, though? Traditionally, you'd
also have the issue of being able to benefit from added security
while also having to work with those parts of the system that
haven't been upgraded. The traditional security incentives
questions.

I'd probably have written this, for instance, as:

  The global deployment of RPKI, Origin Validation of BGP announcements
  and BGPSEC, collectively called SIDR, is underway, creating an Internet
  Routing System consisting of SIDR-aware and non-SIDR-aware networks.
  This deployment must be properly handled to ensure that the Internet
  can have both types of networks while benefitting from the increasing
  deployment of the SIDR technology.

I'd also change "sidrops works to ensure as ..." to say "This working group works to ensure as ..."

I was struggling a bit to parse "The global deployment of RPKI, Origin Validation of BGP announcements and BGPSEC, collectively called SIDR, is underway". I wondered if "The global deployment of SIDR, consisting of RPKI, Origin Validation of BGP announcements, and BGPSEC, is underway" might be clearer, especially with an Oxford comma. Am I reading that right? I saw that Jari also wordsmithed this paragraph, but don't think my proposed text clashes with his.

I liked Benoit's suggestion to expand SIDR on first use.
  
Is sidrops the same thing as sidr-ops? If so, it would be clearer if only one term was used.

In this text:

  Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the Working
  Group if there is a substantial expression of interest from
  the community and if the work (for example protocol maintenance 
  clearly does not fit elsewhere in the IETF.
  
I think there's a missing closing paren after "maintenance".