Hi Jari,
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF'
<draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-02.txt> as Informational 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 2013-03-06. Exceptionally, comments
may be
Hi Jari,
Thanks for your draft.
A couple of points.
1.
Cross-area work does present some challenges, however. Apart from
the advisor model there are no established practices and the
processes and division of responsibility differs from case to case
[RFC2026 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026>].
Regarding "there are no established practices", I would stress the
directorate process. Not really processes in the sense of RFC 2026, but
pretty useful for cross area work.
For example, for MIB doctors, see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/mib-doctors.html
All MIB documents will be passed by a MIB doctor reviewer before
they will be approved by the IESG. The MIB doctor review must be
done after the Working Group Last Call and before the IETF Last
Call. ADs and WG chairs responsible on I-Ds that include MIB
documents should ask the OPS ADs for a MIB review as soon as the
document completed WGLC.
For example, for the YANG doctors, see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/yang-doctors.html
All YANG documents will be passed by a YANG doctor reviewer before
they will be approved by the IESG. The YANG doctor review must be
done after the Working Group Last Call and before the IETF Last
Call. ADs and WG chairs responsible on I-Ds that include YANG
documents should ask the OPS ADs for a review as soon as the
document completed WGLC.
For example, the performance metrics directorate, see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html
Note that this directorate is a relatively new directorate, so the
"process" is still debated
Etc... I can tell you that that "IPFIX doctors" is about to be put in place.
As an OPS AD, I'm trying to make sure that the OPS-related directorates
have a clear documentation containing: the directorate goal, the
"process", the benefits, the guidelines, etc...
2.
part of the problem here is
that IESG does not normally develop a master plan, but rather
individual documents and charter proposals are brought to the IESG
in a piecemeal fashion, one by one. This makes it hard to see
bigger trends and possibilities for colliding work.
I'm not sure if the master plan is the primary problem. At the time of
the charter creation, discussions regarding the work division between
different WGs take place. However, along the time, different WGs take
different directions. And there, the master plan might fall apart. So I
would say the problem is the lack of revisiting the existing charters/WG
new directions on regular basis.
Somehow, my comment relates to a sentence I see later in the draft:
Periodic review and re-assessment is healthy and encouraged.
3.
Jari, you mentioned in one of the emails: "The document has been mostly
aimed at ADs and WG chairs"
Out of the 10 recommendations, some don't give me a clear advice. I can
only say: "sure, that is common sense!"
7. The best examples of successful cross-area work involve
combining two pieces of expertise, with both parties having an
incentive to complete the work.
4.
Potentially, out of the 10 recommendations, you could flag the ones that
might require some sort of process improvements.
For example:
10. In general, the ability to associate work with all the areas
that it relates to will be helpful not just for scheduling, but
also for participants following an area of work, review teams,
and so on.
Regards, Benoit