[scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Thanks Bert,

> I do not think IETF signed an MoU, did we?

You are correct. I should say:

They are fully based on the MoU sighed by subset of participating
SDOs and also our discussions.

> I have no objection to forming the WG.
> Now... it seems you want the IETF to be a formal participant.
> Do I understand that correctly, or would you rather see that I
> motivate current IETF participants to also become individual
> participants of the GGF WG-to-be?

I believe our consensus is later. We will encourage technical
experts from all SDOs to participate this new WG as individual.

Each member can input, discuss, improve a deliverable of this WG
but we don't ask to get formal approval of his/her home team.

> - I know/think that ITU-T NGN MFG has also an objective to get a summary
>   of applicable NM standards in their NGN space. It is not exactly the
>   same... but similar. That is why I suggested in the past to get Dave
>   Sidor involved.

Yes, Sidor and I talked over phone on April 28 and I understood
both use the almost the same mechanism/process. However, scope/target
and goals/output are quite a bit different.

I think we should add their work to answer #4.

> - I know that also ETSI TISPAN WG 8 is doung a document (lots of contentrs
>   already) that is a taxonomy of NM related standards. Seems even more
>   overlapping (competing?) than the NGN MFG work.

If you can tell me what is their work, I am more than happy to
add them to answer #4, also.

Let's discuss these issues at the call.
----
Hiro Kishimoto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf
> Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 7:21 PM
> To: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org
> Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft
>
> Inline
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto
> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:32
> > To: scrm-private at ggf.org
> > Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Please find a draft charter of SCRM-WG and related seven questions and
> > answers. They are fully based on our signed MoU and our discussions.
> >
> I do not think IETF signed an MoU, did we?
>
> > Although we plan to review these documents at the upcoming SCRM call
> > on June 6th, I would give a big welcome to questions and/or comments
> > by email in advance.
> >
>
> W.r.t. the charter, I think that we should add explicit dates and
> time-slots for formal approval process byu each organization.
> Maybe others can just decide for their organization, but if
> you want a formal OK from IETF on any output documents, then
> I suspect that I need to go through 4-week IETF Last Call and
> IESG approval process. If anyone in IETF has issues with the
> documents in Last Call, often several more weeks are needed
> to get agreement. And the result may be that they do want
> changes to the document as well.
>
> Now, the proposed documents are (I guess) informational documents,
> and so they may pass through IETF much more easily.
>
> > After getting green light at the next SCRM call, I will revise and submit
> > these documents to GGF steering group for approval. If it runs smoothly,
> > the WG is approved before GGF14 (June 27).
> >
> I have no objection to forming the WG.
> Now... it seems you want the IETF to be a formal participant.
> Do I understand that correctly, or would you rather see that I
> motivate current IETF participants to also become individual
> participants of the GGF WG-to-be?
>
>
> w.r.t. the Q&A, question 4.
>
> - I know/think that ITU-T NGN MFG has also an objective to get a summary
>   of applicable NM standards in their NGN space. It is not exactly the
>   same... but similar. That is why I suggested in the past to get Dave
>   Sidor involved.
> - I know that also ETSI TISPAN WG 8 is doung a document (lots of contentrs
>   already) that is a taxonomy of NM related standards. Seems even more
>   overlapping (competing?) than the NGN MFG work.
>
> Bert
> > Thanks,
> > ----
> > Hiro Kishimoto
> >
> >
> >
>