I would suggest that if a study goup is going to be effective it might well
want to meet somewhere other than an IETF plenary.
If you are going to study phishing then talk to bankers, lawyers and law
enforcement. If you are going to study deployment of IPv6 talk to ISPs and to
equipment manufacturers who are not doing what you want.
________________________________
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Mon 10/09/2007 5:53 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-aboba-sg-experiment (Experiment in Study Group
Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) to Experimental RFC
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.)
- to what extent do the rules that apply to WG operation (open
participation, decisions made on the list, etc.), also apply to SG
operation?
- 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?)
- are SGs allowed to have face to face meetings independently of IETF?
(this is an openness question)
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.
Keith
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Experiment in Study Group Formation within the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) '
<draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt> as an Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2007-10-08. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=16256&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf