Subject: [dhcwg] DHCP Directorate Proposal

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:47:24 +0000

Hello:

At the Orlando IETF, Ted Lemon (AD) introduced the idea of an IETF DHCP Directorate to help streamline the DHC WG workload and provide assistance to other working groups developing DHCP options. Ted and the DHC WG co-chairs developed the following proposal for an DHCP Directorate. As this is tied to the DHC WG re-charter (see separate email), Ted requested that we share this with the DHC WG for feedback. This will also be on the agenda for discussion at Berlin, to hopefully finalize it shortly thereafter.

While the DHC re-charter and DHCP directorate are connected, we'd like to try to separate the discussion (hence the re-charter) is in a separate email).

Per http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418:

   In many areas, the Area Directors have formed an advisory group or
   directorate.  These comprise experienced members of the IETF and the
   technical community represented by the area.  The specific name and
   the details of the role for each group differ from area to area, but
   the primary intent is that these groups assist the Area Director(s),
   e.g., with the review of specifications produced in the area.

For a list of existing directorates, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html.

Proposed DHCP Directorate:

DHCP Directorate

The DHCP Directorate is an advisory group of DHCP experts selected by the
Internet Area Directors.

The notion of a directorate is defined in RFC 2418 as follows:

  In many areas, the Area Directors have formed an advisory group or
  directorate. These comprise experienced members of the IETF and the
  technical community represented by the area. The specific name and the
  details of the role for each group differ from area to area, but the
  primary intent is that these groups assist the Area Director(s), e.g.,
  with the review of specifications produced in the area.

What Does the Directorate Do?

The main purpose of the DHCP Directorate is to review all documents
submitted to the IESG for publication that define new DHCP (DHCPv6 or
DHCPv4) options, DHCP messages, or DHCP client, relay agent or server
processing. Generally speaking, documents advanced by the DHC WG will
have already received review from members of the DHCP Directorate and
thus may not require such review.

While the DHC WG is active, the DHCP Directorate is responsible for
reviewing DHCP options or other extensions (for both IPv4 and IPv6). The
Directorate is expected to review all proposed extensions to DHCP to
ensure that they are consistent with the DHCP specification and other
option formats, that they do not duplicate existing mechanisms, etc.
Generally speaking, the Directorate will not be responsible for evaluating
the semantic content of proposed options.

The tasks performed by the Directorate are:

1. Review all documents submitted to the IESG for publication that have
   DHCP options, messages, or processing requirements. A review is
   triggered:

   - By request for early review (by any AD or by any WG chair)
   - By a document moving to 'publication requested' state
   - By entry on the IESG agenda (for other documents)

2. Assist ADs with judgment issues when requested - The ADs may send email
   to the directorate list when they have issues that they want help with.
   Examples for judgment issues are:

   - New option formats.
   - New client, relay, server agent processing.

3. Try to follow IETF documents related to DHCP as early as possible and
   provide guidance to authors as early as possible.

How is Document Review Organized?

1. The DHCP Directorate Coordinator assigns each document that is
   triggered for review to at least two (2) reviewers and issues a Review
   Request. Authors and contributors to a document must not be assigned.
   The Review Request will include the document and review deadline.
2. The assigned reviewers must acknowledge and agree to review the
   document within 72 hours and respond with a "can review by deadline" or
   "can't review". No reply is interpreted as "can't review".
3. If the Coordinator does not receive "can review by deadline" within 72
   hours, the Coordinator selects at least one or two additional reviewers.
   This process is repeated until at least two reviewers are found.
4. The reviewers provide comments as appropriate (IETF Last Call, Area
   Director, document authors).
5. The Coordinator may decide to call upon additional reviewers if
   expected review is overdue or the topic under review is a complex one.

How is the Directorate Formed?

1. Directorate members are assigned to the Directorate by the Internet
    Area Directors.
2. There is an expectation that Directorate membership will not be
    limited to 'old-time DHCP gods from years past'. It is assumed that
    the Directorate will include younger and newer participants who are
    interested in 'learning while doing work'.
3. Each assignment is for a three year term, unless the member or Internet
    Area Director requests a shorter term.
4. The terms are staggered so that approximately 1/3 of the directorate
    members have their term end each year.
5. When the Directorate is first established members of the Directorate
    will be assigned either one year, two years, or three years in their
    first term.
6. When a member's term expires, the Internet ADs may replace the person
    whose term expires, may reappoint the same person, or may reduce the
    size of the Directorate. There is no expectation that the same person
    will either want to be returned, or will be returned.
7. The three year term serves as the limit of the commitment of a
    Directorate member, but also serves as a way to return Directorate
    members to the community.
8. In deciding whether to reappoint a member whose term has expired, the
    Internet ADs may consider the quantity of work that they have done,
    the ADs' impression of the quality of the work, and the comments from
    the authors and other Directorate members regarding the reviews.
9. If a member resigns before the member's term expires, the Internet
    Area Directors may appoint a replacement.
10. The Internet Area Directors may remove a member before the member's
    term expires, and may appoint a replacement.
11. Internet ADs can assign additional members to the Directorate whenever
    they want to, subject to willingness of people to serve.
12. Both ADs need to agree in order to assign a member to the Directorate.
13. Both ADs select one of the Directorate members as the DHCP Directorate
    Coordinator on a yearly basis.

END

-          Ted, Tomek, & Bernie

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:27:06 +0000

Ted, Bernie, Tomek,

This is a great idea and something that has been discussed for some time.
Glad to see you moving this forward.  The concept seems straight forward
as such I do not have a great deal of feedback on the text below.

John
=========================================
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) 484-962-0060
o) 609-377-6594
w) www.comcast6.net
e) [email-masked]
=========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:47 PM
To: dhc WG <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Subject: [dhcwg] DHCP Directorate Proposal

>Hello:
> 
>At the Orlando IETF, Ted Lemon (AD) introduced the idea of an IETF DHCP
>Directorate to help streamline the DHC WG workload and provide assistance
>to other working groups developing DHCP options. Ted and the DHC WG
>co-chairs developed the
> following proposal for an DHCP Directorate. As this is tied to the DHC
>WG re-charter (see separate email), Ted requested that we share this with
>the DHC WG for feedback. This will also be on the agenda for discussion
>at Berlin, to hopefully finalize it shortly
> thereafter.
> 
>While the DHC re-charter and DHCP directorate are connected, we¹d like to
>try to separate the discussion (hence the re-charter) is in a separate
>email).
> 
>For a list of existing directorates, see
>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html
><http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>.
> 
>-         
>Ted, Tomek, & Bernie

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:31:45 -0400

This all seems reasonable to me, except for one issue that seems
odd.

I would have thought that the DHC WG Chairs would have some role
in the selection of individuals for the directorate and the
reappointment, etc. of these individuals.

I don't know, perhaps it just "isn't done that way" with the
other directorates, or perhaps the politics of AD/WG Chair
interactions means that AD's don't *want* any official role for
the WG chairs when selecting folks for the directorate.

I'm not up to speed on all of the subtleties of the interactions
in the more rarefied levels of the IETF.  But as a long time
person in the trenches, it seems like the fact that the DHC WG
Chairs are not mentioned at all in this document (except
regarding a request for early review of a document) indicates a
stratification of control that has an odd feel to me.

I would have expected that the DHC WG chairs would play a major
role in selecting folks for the DHCP Directorate.

Regards -- Kim

On Jun 25, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> While the DHC re-charter and DHCP directorate are connected, we’d like to try to separate the discussion (hence the re-charter) is in a separate email).
>  
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:53:35 +0000

Kim:

A key reason for not specifically involving the DHC WG (co-chairs) in the DHCP Directorate is that the Directorate can outlive the DHC WG :).

I would suspect that most ADs would rely on the DHC WG chairs (if active) and "dhcp experts" for recommendations as to potential members.  But it will also depend on the AD - if they were a past DHC chair, they might already know the potential pool fairly well.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:32 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear); [email-masked]; Ted Lemon ([email-masked])
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Directorate Proposal

This all seems reasonable to me, except for one issue that seems odd.

I would have thought that the DHC WG Chairs would have some role in the selection of individuals for the directorate and the reappointment, etc. of these individuals.

I don't know, perhaps it just "isn't done that way" with the other directorates, or perhaps the politics of AD/WG Chair interactions means that AD's don't *want* any official role for the WG chairs when selecting folks for the directorate.

I'm not up to speed on all of the subtleties of the interactions in the more rarefied levels of the IETF.  But as a long time person in the trenches, it seems like the fact that the DHC WG Chairs are not mentioned at all in this document (except regarding a request for early review of a document) indicates a stratification of control that has an odd feel to me.

I would have expected that the DHC WG chairs would play a major role in selecting folks for the DHCP Directorate.

Regards -- Kim

On Jun 25, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> The DHCP Directorate is an advisory group of DHCP experts selected by 
> the Internet Area Directors.
>  
> reviewing DHCP options or other extensions (for both IPv4 and IPv6). 
> The Directorate is expected to review all proposed extensions to DHCP 
> to ensure that they are consistent with the DHCP specification and 
> other option formats, that they do not duplicate existing mechanisms, etc.
> Generally speaking, the Directorate will not be responsible for 
> evaluating the semantic content of proposed options.
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 01:00:46 +0000

> the WG chairs when selecting folks for the directorate.

Directorates are not associated with working groups, so although the DHC working group chairs are (a) quite likely to be asked to be members of the directorate and (b) would certainly be consulted, the directorate sits under the AD in the hierarchy, not under the working group, hence the formal structure.

> role in selecting folks for the DHCP Directorate.

You would be right.  :)