Hi,
The complete text of the strawman -03 document is available here:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IAB/draft-aboba-sg-experiemnt-03.txt
Easily corrected typo, but just for ease of clicking, the correct URL is
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IAB/draft-aboba-sg-experiment-03.txt
Now, for something completely different...
Since this is an experiment - please don't hold up the experiment while you
try to legalese-craft all the corner cases, but you might include a "things
to clarify if the experiment succeeds" list... which might include this
question...
From way down at the bottom of the 03 Introduction (which is really long,
but):
This document describes an RFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the
Working Group formation process, known as the Study Group. Study
Groups MAY be formed by the IESG when there is evidence of clear
interest in a topic on the part of IETF participants and end-users,
and relevance to the Internet community has been demonstrated, but
other RFC 2418 [RFC2418] criteria relating to Working Group formation
(including creation of a satisfactory Charter) have not yet been met
as the result of a first or second Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) session.
So far, so good... I'm not confused until the next paragraph:
Study Group milestones are focused on completion of prerequisites for
Working Group formation, and as a result they are expected to
conclude within a short time frame, with limited opportunities for
milestone extension. This Study Group experiment does not alter the
Working Group formation guidelines described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418]
Section 2.1, the processes relating to BoFs [BOF] or the Internet
Standards Process described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
Is everyone but me totally clear on how BOFs interact with SGs and WGs?
The way I'm reading this, the mainline path through this procedure is that
some community of interest requests a BOF, with a request that's plausible
enough for an AD to go for it, and then the IESG suggests a SG after the
BOF.
If the SG "succeeds", is there any opportunity to hold a second BOF (which
seems reasonable, as a WG-forming BOF that would have more IETF-wide
visibility), or does the SG have to go straight to WG (which is the way I
read version 03)?
And, for extra credit, if the answer is "yes", what if the community held
two BOFs before the SG formed (which would be the 2418 limit)? The answer
based on "does not alter the process" seems to be "no" - is that what we
want?
And a couple of nits...
Nit: there are places in this draft that say "charter", but since both SGs
and WGs have charters, it would be great if these occurences were qualified
as "SG charter" or "WG charter".
Nit: [BOF] is great advice (I've reviewed it at least once for Thomas), but
it's not "the processes relating to BOFs [BOF]". The last time I saw [BOF],
it was intended to be informational - the process is still normatively
described in 2418.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf