[scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter
Dave Sidor
djsidor at nortel.com
Wed Jun 8 16:05:04 CDT 2005
Hiro et al,
Two additional proposals regarding the Q&A handout:
- clause 4: Please change to "The ITU-T Next Generation Network
Management Focus Group (NGNMFG) and the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) TISPAN WG8 are generating summaries of
management standards applicable to NGN. However, the scope of this
working group is believed to be broader in scope."
- clause 5: Please revise to be consistent with the charter text: "
have
agreed to encourage participation of their technical experts in the WG."
Thanks
Dave
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
>
> Thanks Bert and Dave,
>
> Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to
> the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers.
>
> Please have a look.
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
>
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org
> > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release draft
> > and charter document draft]
> >
> > Bert et al,
> >
> > I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an alternative for
> > his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first paragraph to
> > be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible
> > revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the first paragraph
> > and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO names taken from
> > the press release:
> >
> > "Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been
> > carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall
> > collaboration on next generation standards for web service based
> > management of networked and individual resources. As a result of this
> > discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a
> > cross-institutional technical working group which will produce
> > informational document with the primary objective of converging common
> > terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of the various
> > technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity is called
> > "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked
> > Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum).
> >
> > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style
> > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the
> > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of
> > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking
> > Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum (TMF), and the
> > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development
> > organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and
> > the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
> > Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in participating
> > in this activity."
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> > >
> > > In the WG charter I see:
> > >
> > > Focus/Purpose
> > > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs),
> > > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C
> > > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to
> > > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation
> > > standards for web service based management of networked
> > > and individual resources.
> > >
> > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from
> > > Several major Standards...
> > > into
> > > Several people/individuals from major Standards...
> > > I know that some of you speak "for their organization".
> > > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to
> > > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area.
> > > I believe such is true for some others as well.
> > >
> > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1:
> > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not
> > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just
> > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All
> > > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote
> > > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF
> > > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and
> > > commitment can participate
> > > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some
> > > of us do not officially repersent our organisations):
> > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not
> > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just
> > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All
> > > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute
> > > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular
> > > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills,
> > > interest and commitment can participate
> > >
> > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would
> > > be a good idea) to change:
> > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0,
> > > October 2005.
> > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for
> > > public review, January, 2006.
> > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0,
> > > April, 2006.
> > > into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of
> > > the organizations that are listed. So how about:
> > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0,
> > > October 2005.
> > > 1a: Review in each organization and
> > > collect comments, November 2005
> > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for
> > > public review, January, 2006.
> > > 2a: In paralelle review in each org
> > > and collect comments or OK
> > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0,
> > > April, 2006.
> > > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed
> > > to have the final review/ok from each organization.
> > >
> > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good.
> > >
> > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape
> > > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed
> > > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should
> > > speed up the process of the glossary document.
> > >
> > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks".
> > > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the
> > > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have
> > > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls
> > > already. You do state that the primary communication channel is
> > > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such
> > > a pressure on repetitive conf calls.
> > >
> > > Bert
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21
> > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org
> > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document
> > > > draft
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call.
> > > >
> > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document
> > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today.
> > > >
> > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday
> > > > (June 9).
> > > >
> > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes.
> > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again,
> > > > ----
> > > > Hiro Kishimoto
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc
> GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc
> SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
More information about the scrm-private
mailing list