[scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter
Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
bwijnen at lucent.com
Thu Jun 9 16:53:26 CDT 2005
Hiro,
these drafts are fine with me.
The IETF does not want to make a statement for you to quote,
so please remove that piece.
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On
> Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 05:03
> To: scrm-private at ggf.org
> Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter
>
>
> Thanks Dave and Bert,
>
> Jay and I have added your comments in the draft documents.
> We've also made a couple of word-smithing but did not change
> contents and intentions.
>
> Please give your feedbacks and quote by the end of business
> Thursday.
>
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org
> [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Dave Sidor
> > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:05 AM
> > To: Hiro Kishimoto
> > Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org
> > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter
> >
> > 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