Hi Brian,
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 27/12/2014 06:46, Alia Atlas wrote:
...
I'm a little bit surprised that the RTG area load has gone up like this,
and so quickly. Is it the various SDN things that are pushing this, or
is it
that the RTG area currently has the most enthusiasm for YANG work?
It's a mixture of things combined with RTG already being at the very top
edge
of workload. In RTG we have/will have about 21 active WGs; if we add a
third routing AD,
then RTG will absorb 3 WGs from INT. Granted that one is not active and
may
be merged in, we are still looking at about 23 WGs for RTG with a more
average load being about 8 WGs/AD.
So let's be frank about this. Today (excluding the General Area AD
with his crippling load of 1 WG) we have 129 WGs for 14 Ads,
which is 9.2 WGs/AD. That is clearly too many, so should there
be a target ratio and a plan for reaching it?
No, as you well know, it depends on the size and business of the WGs, the
management load, etc., as well as the number. Clearly we don't want to not
create new WGs when appropriate nor to discourage existing useful work.
This is a question of balancing load and there is a surge of YANG-related
work
which does require more focused management. Is it better to have 2 ADs at
100%-120% and others with less load when the size of the IESG would be
otherwise
reduced. Are you suggesting that suggesting another routing AD to take
load from RTG and INT
is a bad idea compared to dropping the IESG to 14 & eventually 13?
Are you simply concerned with the dynamics of how many ADs have the various
perspectives on the IESG?
Obviously, we are looking for feedback and opinions and ideas. Do you have
other
well thought out suggestions?
Regards,
Alia
Brian