I have been somewhat troubled at the discussion about the SG draft and proposed
experiment, and I think part of the reason is that there's a range of leashes
being envisioned, with everything from "study groups are where the villagers
riot" to "the process for forming a study group is indistinguishable from
forming a working group".
If the SG process gets sufficiently close to the WG process, I don't see the
point. If you have to be able to convince a reluctant AD, why would you not
request a BOF? At least within RAI, the running code is "meet as a SIPPING ad
hoc, either at lunch or at 10:30 PM", and there doesn't seem to be much process
wrapped around that.
There are enough positive things about Gab's suggestion (to use the IRTF as a
home for WG explorations, in addition to research) that I'd like to see a
proposal for this alternative.
Dan (and Gab) have been around the IEEE a lot more than I have, but one of the
translation issues I'm wondering about is that the go/no-go decision in IEEE
seems a lot more straighforward in IEEE than in IETF - if you have a plausible
PAR and reasonable answers to the Five Criteria, doesn't the decision tend
toward "go"?
At least in RAI, we've been approving new working groups fairly frequently, but
there have been times, especially in specific areas, where there was a lot of
resistance to chartering new working groups, based solely on the number of
existing working groups and the load that places on ADs
(http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-klensin-overload-00.txt might have
been outside the mainstream, but I don't think John and Marshall were WAY
outside the mainstream in their 2002 draft).
I am intrigued by the idea that we can't charter new work because we have too
many working groups now, because a quick examination of my own area shows about
five-or-so working groups that are amazingly close to closing down, but they do
not seem to close down, IETF after IETF. Is this different in other areas?
I would ask people to spend a little time thinking about the idea that the
number of slots in an IETF week should determine the number of chartered
working groups. That seems like the tail wagging the dog.
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: Gabriel Montenegro
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) ; Eliot Lear ; Eric Rescorla
Cc: Jari Arkko ; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:19 AM
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 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!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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