Yes, but RGs are not initiated by the IESG but by the IRTF and they are focused
on research oriented charters. Many of the issues faced by folks that discuss
the possible formation of new WGs are engineering rather than research issues.
From: Gabriel Montenegro
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:20 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Eliot Lear; Eric Rescorla
Cc: Jari Arkko; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
I have seen the functioning of SGs at the IEEE and agree that they can
be useful, but I'm not sure about how it is being "translated" into the IETF>
It occurs to me that we don't need to invent a new process here. The
IRTF houses different types of "research" groups: some are meant
to be long-lived, some are meant to meet during IETF, some never meet,
etc. There also are some RGs that have operated in a manner
similar to the study groups being proposed: NSRG (name spaces research
group), for example. And some that have been started as an
alternative to petitions to form a WG, and which would seriously
having a tighter charter with specific milestones and expectations
(e.g., p2prg RG).
RGs are created with all sorts of different goals in mind. All that the
IESG needs here, I think, is to start an RG to probe further into
a given issue, and keep it on a short leash along the lines stipulated
for the SG: e.g., milestones, meetings during IETF, explicit IESG liaison, etc.
But the point is that these conditions need not be the same for each
I also think this is something useful the IRTF could do, as most often
than not, it actually doesn't do any research. The IESG wins, the IRTF wins,
the IETF wins.
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:45:44 +0200
> From: dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com
> To: lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; ekr(_at_)networkresonance(_dot_)com
> CC: jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
> The way I see it the problem that this proposal tries to solve is
> helping the IESG and the community to make a better decision when the
> forming of the working group us discussed. It is not about bringing
> work to the IETF, it is about making sure to a better extent that the
> right work is being brought into the IETF. In the absence of such a
> process what we see in many cases is the formation of ad-hoc groups,
> which is not necessarily bad - but why not charter them with a set of
> clear questions which may help the IESG and the whole community reach
> more educated decision?
> Regarding terminology, the term 'study group' is used in this proposal
> in a way similar to how the IEEE is using it.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:30 PM
> > To: Eric Rescorla
> > Cc: Jari Arkko; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
> > If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be to
> > provide ADs some indication of level of interest and ability
> > to succeed. I see no reason why we need to formalize this
> > within the IETF. Furthemore, the terminology is problematic.
> > We are overlapping a term that is commonly used by the ITU
> > the way working group is used by the IETF.
> > Let's not make the process any more confusing than it already is.
> > Finally, milestones for such "study groups" seem to me
> > It may be that a topic is uninteresting for quite a while and
> > then picks up. ANY way to demonstrate that interest and
> > ability to succeed should be sufficient, regardless of how
> > much time has passed.
> > Eliot
> Ietf mailing list
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café.
Stop by today!
Ietf mailing list