Re: Proposed IESG structure change

As others, I applaud the IESG for reviewing its structure and 
considering alternatives to "the way things have always been".
The particular proposal brings to the front of my mind some questions 
I've had about a gap in IETF work and Internet technical specifications. 
 Now seems like the time to ask :^)
In terms of specifications to "make the Internet work better", there is 
a lot of work that is not Transport[*], isn't web, and isn't RealTime 
Applications (infrastructure).  Beyond mail, http, and calendaring, 
there is a whole bunch of interconnective goo that I, at least, have 
called "application infrastructure".   While the standards may not have 
been fully developed or taken up, the same questions the APP area 
wrestled with a decade ago are appearing in modern efforts -- 
identifiers, localization, discovery, search, lookup are all part of 
Content Centric Name Based Network Routing, content handling for IPR, 
identity and certs, and pretty much anything that pops up a level into 
information structures.
Those efforts are each working through the same problems in their own 
unique way, and/or they are not perceiving the IETF as a useful home for 
the work.
IMO, there needs to be an answer about how to address those questions in 
the Internet context -- whether in standalone standards (like the URI 
suite) or by developing and applying general expertise to address them 
in a consistent fashion across developing standards for particular purposes.
I think that means having someone/some people on the IESG who can 1/ 
recognize and 2/ cultivate that work (and, to a lesser extent,  3/ 
provide that input into cross-area review).
So, I'd like to hear from the IESG (and the IAB) how they see the 
landscape of application infrastructure being handled in a way that's 
consistent with the IETF's mission, especially in the light of this 
proposed structure change.
Leslie.
[*] Wasn't TSV all but dead a few years ago, because all the interesting 
transport stuff was obvious RAI work?


On 10/7/14 6:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
> Dear Community:
>
> The IESG is considering a change in structure, with the intent to increase
> flexibility as IETF work evolves, to ensure that all IETF work is covered by
> an AD, and to balance and reduce the workload across the ADs. A significant
> amount of the work that is going on in the APP area pertains to the web
> protocols, but that has a good deal of crossover with work in RAI. There is
> also some crossover work between the APP and TSV areas. While the specific
> amount of work in any IETF area fluctuates over time, we have noticed that
> the number of WGs in the APP area, particularly on the non-web protocols, is
> currently shrinking. So we are starting to think about reorganizing the areas
> a bit, possibly merging parts (or all) of the APP and RAI areas into a single
> area, possibly redistributing work in other ways between all of the areas,
> but in any event changing the load balance among the areas and the ADs,
> while continuing the work that the WGs are currently doing. It is explicitly
> not our intention to bar any existing or new work from the IETF with these
> changes.  We are committing to coming up with a proposal to the community
> for that by May 2015. We believe the end result of that could be to reduce the
> number of areas by one.
>
> In the short term, however, we would like to advise the NomCom to *not* fill
> the APP AD vacancy in this NomCom cycle. We believe the current load can be
> handled by the one remaining APP AD, and the RAI and TSV ADs are committed
> to helping out if need be. We believe that it is unreasonable to have the
> NomCom find a new AD and ask them to commit to two years only to discover
> later that we may want to eliminate or significantly change the responsibilities
> for that position within a year. Whether the end result is that we end up with a
> combined larger RAI/APP area that requires three ADs, or recombining in some
> other way, we think reducing down to 14 ADs in this NomCom cycle is the right
> thing to do.
>
> We want and need community consultation on this topic. We believe this is the
> correct path, but we need to hear if there are any concerns from the rest of
> the community before we tell the NomCom to do this. Please send your
> comments toietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, or alternatively to 
> iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org if you prefer, by 13
> October 2014.  We need to let the NomCom know ASAP if we decide to move
> forward with this.
>
> Jari Arkko for the IESG
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
     Yours to discover."
                                -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------