Keith,
I have a few questions about this proposal:
- to what extent is a SG allowed to frame the problem to be solved in a
way that would constrain a later WG if one were chartered? it's clear
that they're not supposed to develop protocol specs, but what about
requirements? goals? models of interaction between communicating
parties? terminology?
(I am of two minds about this. one is that the work that an SG does
might well be valuable input into a WG's charter and/or design effort,
and asking a WG to reinvent a perfectly good wheel developed by an SG
would be unreasonable. another is that SGs might be able to function
better and produce results more quickly if they are appointed committees
rather than open discussions, but in such a case their efforts should
not be binding on IETF WGs in any way. my instinct says that SG output
should be at best advisory information for ADs, the community, and any
future WGs.)
I had actually not thought of your second option. But I think that
option is possible, in a similar way that we can write a WG's
charter to say that a first step is to establish a design team.
- to what extent do the rules that apply to WG operation (open
participation, decisions made on the list, etc.), also apply to SG
operation?
The same rules apply to SGs.
- are SGs allowed to request meeting space at IETF plenary meetings?
(this is a resource utilization question - does IESG need to treat SGs
more-or-less as WGs for the purpose of resource allocation? could SGs
preempt creation of WGs due to a lack of resources?)
See above, they could meet.
In general, we try to create the WGs and SGs that
make sense, rather than track any specific resource. But the
following resources do get attention:
- Is the same group of author/chair/key contributor people
trying to do too much at the same time? If yes, their
proposals may need to be serialized.
- Do we have meeting space? As far as I know, the current IESG
has never declined a WG or a BOF based on this. But FWIW, we
have come really close in Prague; scheduling for INT is
a nightmare. We are merging/terminating/reorganizing
some WGs to make space for new ones.
Finally, I would definitely give priority for a WG if I had
to choose between a WG and a SG.
- are SGs allowed to have face to face meetings independently of IETF?
(this is an openness question)
Presumably they could have an interim meeting. Note that
the current practice is that BOF and pre-BOF efforts do
sometimes arrange meetings outside the IETF to try
and get organized, prepare their material, etc. No rules
apply to pre-BOF efforts, but SGs would follow the same
rules as WGs do.
it might be possible to finesse some of these questions by giving
flexibility to IESG during the experimental period to specify these
things in a SG's charter and perhaps even to let them vary from one SG
to another.
Yes, the intent is to let the group/IESG write the SG charter
in different ways, depending on what is appropriate for the
case in question.
By the way, I'm sponsoring this document but I also intend
to create an SG or two, assuming I can find a BOF effort that
is reasonable enough that they deserve one but have not
progressed far enough so that they should not simply be
given a WG.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf