ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Out-of-area ADs [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]

2014-12-26 13:48:04

Hi Brian,

Just on the generic issues you raised (i.e. not on anima)...

On 26/12/14 18:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 26/12/2014 08:25, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG proposes
to experiment with this approach initially by shifting to out-of-area ADs for
RADEXT, DIME, LMAP, and ANIMA, perhaps with another few WGs to follow.

I have some doubt whether this approach should ever be considered
normal, rather than exceptional. If it becomes considered normal, it
would imply that our assignment of WGs to Areas, and of ADs to Areas,
are often incorrect.

Or that the area definitions need re-examination, or that cross-area
work has become common for some other reason. At minimum, if we have
this tool, and if it's overused, we have another way to detect that
something needs re-adjusting. In fact, I think it'll be more useful
than that myself.

There is also a practical aspect - meeting scheduling. At the moment,
a rough-and-ready rule is: never schedule more than 2 sessions for the
same Area at the same time, which guarantees that an AD is available
for each sessions. With numerous out-of-area ADs, this aspect of
scheduling will become very complicated.

Actually that's gotten better with the new tooling that handles
conflicts reasonably well. And in most cases where we've mentioned
possible out-of-area ADs I think we'd likely already have considered
the same conflict.

Cheers,
S.

I have a specific concern about considering an out-of-area AD for
ANIMA. It's a new WG and the current AD invested heavily in the
chartering process. I would be very concerned about changing that
before the WG is well established.




    Brian