ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

2007-10-08 09:34:35
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 benefit from
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 such RG/SG.
 
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.
 
-gabriel



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; 
iesg(_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 about> 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 more> 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 a> 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. > > Dan> > > > > > -----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 
inappropriate. > > 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> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by 
today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf