Subject: [Icar] Moving on with ICAR: WG formation and charter

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:25:50 -0800

Folks-
  
 Steven Belovin and I will be taking care of the pre-WG discussion on
 ICAR for the IESG.

 Before we go any further, I would like to solicit feedback from the
 community on the following points:
 
  1. Do you believe that a WG should be formed to work on improving
     IETF cross-functional review (see IESG message [Ref1] for more
     detail)?

  If so:

  2. Would you be willing to actively participate in this WG (by
     contributing to or reviewing the documents, participating
     in the discussions, etc.)?

  3. Please review the part in [Ref1] that provides a preliminary
     description of the WG and send your comments. The text in the
     message is likely to be used for the WG charter if there's
     sufficient support to form the WG.

 Please send your replies to the ICAR mailing list ([email-masked]).

 Thank you.
 
Alex Zinin
     
----
 [Ref1] The IESG, "Improving IETF review - further work", 05 Dec 2003
        http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg27596.html

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar

---

From: "Michael A. Patton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:43:35 -0500 (EST)

It's been nearly a week and I haven't seen any responses to Alex
Zinin's original posting, so I thought I'd try and spark some
discussion...

     1. Do you believe that a WG should be formed to work on improving
	IETF cross-functional review?

My initial answer is "no".  Not because I think that a WG is a bad
idea, but because I feel that there is a lot of improvement that can
be hashed out and tried in some test cases without the overhead of
forming a full WG.  This is analogous to trying out a few ideas for a
protocol before deciding to form a WG for a standard.  I'll make this
more concrete by offering such an idea in a separate message.

If there are concrete things that require updates to the existing
procedures RFCs, then, yes we should have a WG.  But I think we can
get many of the improvements within the current framework, and that
just requires discussion, some trial exploration and then including it 

To be more specific, I think that we may get more initial thrust if
ICAR starts out more like the description of PROTO (see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg27636.html
for that description), and after some gains have been made within the
existing framework, form a working group IF there are concrete changes
that require updates to the existing spec.

My gut feeling on this is that 75% of what can be done fits in the
existing high level procedures and is really just a tweak to how they
are implemented.

     If so:
[Well, since I said "no" this technically makes the rest moot, but
I'll respond to that, too, because this was really "If you think
there's work to be done" as opposed to "If you think that work should
start with forming a WG".]

Yes.  Perhaps sometimes only by offering cross-functional review of
documents under discussion...  But often participating (or spurring,
when required :-) discussion, and even offering text...

I believe the text in that message is a good rough goal.  If the
consensus goes for making a WG, It's a good first cut at a charter.
But as I said, I think the first job for the list is NOT forming a WG,
but discussing things that could be done NOW within the current
procedural RFCs.

	-MAP

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:54:46 -0800

Michael,

there's been some efforts towards various types of cross-area review:

- the SIRS effort
- the MIB Doctors, Ops Directorate and Routing Directorate
- the Security Advisors
- the DCCP review in Vienna

I think we could try to capture some of the experiences with those 
mechanisms, to give us a handle on what's worthy of emulation and what's 
not so good to emulate.

And I think a WG-like structure is a nice way to structure a discussion 
forum for building on that experience.

So while I'm not saying that you're wrong in saying "just do it", I'd like 
to know that we know what we're doing, and why....

              Harald

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:17:59 -0600

My replies inline...

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Zinin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:25 PM
Subject: [Icar] Moving on with ICAR: WG formation and charter
>      IETF cross-functional review (see IESG message [Ref1] for more

Well... I think cross-functional review is a good thing (duh), but am
confused about the relationship between icar and other review
improvements (SIR/CARD, AIR/CREW, ART, 2-LEVEL ...). The things that
worry me are:

- fragmentation of efforts to improve reviews (early, late,
cross-area, peer-to-peer vs formal approval, etc.). I think there is
enough energy in the IETF to improve the way we do reviews, but not
enough to do a bunch of parallel discussion ("you are in a maze of
twisty passages, all alike"). I'm also curious about interactions
between proposals these efforts put forward.

- I thought Ted Hardie's description of the "Ambulance Syndrome" in
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/nov2003-minneapolis/iesg-overview.pdf
was a critical problem to solve, and didn't see this addressed in icar
yet (or anywhere else). Not to be blunt, but I can take more
"sponsored" time to contribute solicited reviews in a SIR/CARD or
AIR/CREW framework than just replying to a general call for cross-area
review on a mailing list.

>      in the discussions, etc.)?

Sure, but this is competing for my time and energy with at least
newtrk and mpowr, at least for me. I'll probably contribute to the
efforts that seem to be moving forward. Progress is good.

>      sufficient support to form the WG.

"Peer-to-peer" isn't described anywhere, so you're counting on
everyone having the same understanding of what you're thinking.

It's probably good to be clear about what icar is picking up, and not
picking up, from the proposals listed as references. Is improved
review as part of the standard approval process in scope or not, for
instance? Is 2-LEVEL in scope?

Is there any formal role for IAB here? Especially if you're looking
for architectural fit as part of early review?

I know Alex is the routing AD - are we trying to move from a broadcast
LAN  in a working group to a routed network of reviewers? I've been
following manet for a while, and think self-organizing routed networks
is still a research topic :-} Actually, if this is what you are trying
to do, it's worth saying so explicitly, because if this is what you're
trying to do, we tend to rely on hierarchies for scalability :-{

Spencer

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:50:13 +0100

hi,

>      IETF cross-functional review (see IESG message [Ref1] for more

yes - and there are some areas where such cross-reviews are becoming
of major importance, in particular due to the fact the some wg's are
focusing on protocols (ospf, is-is, etc.) vs approaches (mpls, ccamp,
pwe3, l2/l3vpn, etc.) wg which themselves gave rise to protocols (to
name a few ldp, lmp, etc.) - one can also distinguish two cases here
multiple wg's w/i same area and cross-area (w/ multiple wg's)

>      in the discussions, etc.)?

yes

>      sufficient support to form the WG.

what's the scope of the "architectural" problems to be early catched ?
are these networking or protocol interaction related, or both and/or
any combination ?

thanks,
- dimitri.

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : [email-masked]
E-mail : [email-masked]
Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : +32 3 240-8491

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:07:52 -0700 (MST)

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Michael A. Patton wrote:

> 1. Do you believe that a WG should be formed to work on
>    improving IETF cross-functional review?

No, such a WG should not be formed.
Or, at least, such a WG should not be formed now.

We might need a WG to improve IETF reviews and review process. Such a
WG can only succeed if it has clear understanding of what existing
roles and rules it can change as a part of its "review improvement"
proposals. At this time, there is no sufficient agreement with regard
to Big Picture solutions to provide such a clear understanding in ICAR
charter.

If chartered, the WG will either waste time on micro-level solutions
that are likely to conflict with some Big Picture changes OR will
immediately stumble on Big Picture questions such as "how we can
enforce early reviews", "how we can make intermediate reviews
consistent with the IESG final review without removing IESG from the
final review loop", "who has the authority to resolve review
conflicts". If the WG is to assume that there are no Big Picture
changes, I question the ability of such WG to produce good solutions;
many drafts quoted in the proposed charter imply Big Picture changes.

Once/if the Big Picture becomes a bit more clear, we can come back and
write a good ICAR charter within that Big Picture.

[If we want a formal WG now, we can charter a Big Picture WG that will
include review improvement as a possible motivation for the big
changes. The purpose of that WG would be to engineer IETF Core changes
or to conclude that no Core changes are needed.]

>    contributing to or reviewing the documents, participating in the
>    discussions, etc.)?

Yes, but given the above arguments, I suspect my contribution would be
limited to a rather negative review/comments and, hence, may be
perceived as unproductive by those who already decided on Big Picture
changes or their absence.

>    description of the WG and send your comments.

a) The scope of the WG is unclear or wrong. "Cross-area" scope is too
   narrow (assuming formal IETF areas are implied). "Cross-functional"
   scope is undefined in the proposed charter. It is not clear
   whether "cross-functional" predicate eliminates something useful.

b) The playing space for the WG is undefined: it is not clear whether
   the WG is allowed to propose changes to core IETF processes, rules,
   and roles and, if yes, which processes/rules/roles are in change
   scope.

c) The charter assumes that "IESG review function" remains mostly
   unchanged. There is currently no IETF consensus whether that
   function needs to change, IMO. Even some of the quoted drafts
   seem to imply significant changes to IESG review function.

d) The implied difference between "peer" and "structural" is unclear
   to me. Define and contrast both terms better since your milestones
   depend on the difference. Furthermore, an a priory assumption of
   separation between "peer" and "structural"  review may hinder WG
   creativity.

HTH,

Alex.

P.S. Note that rejection of ICAR WG does not imply that SIR and
     similar trials should be killed. In fact, IESG should promote
     and publicize such trials as hard as it can.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:16 -0800

Spencer,

> review on a mailing list.

OK, I sense some confusion here.

The idea is not that ICAR would actually _perform_ cross-functional
reviews, thus improving document quality. ICAR would be the place
to discuss _how_ to improve it, including the discussion of those
many proposals we have (SIR, CREW, ART, etc.), as well as the
ambulance syndrome.

> newtrk and mpowr, at least for me.

Duh! :)

> I'll probably contribute to the

> everyone having the same understanding of what you're thinking.

ok, my bad. see the new thread I started, it should help explain
my terminology.

> instance? Is 2-LEVEL in scope?

I think at this stage we should be open for any proposals

> for architectural fit as part of early review?

Formal role within the WG or as part of the improved review process?
I'm not aware of any as far as the former is concerned.

> trying to do, we tend to rely on hierarchies for scalability :-{

Nice one ;)

Again, seems the new thread on review types should help.
Using your analogy though, I think the goal should be to encourage
paying more attention to the traffic on the broadcast segment,
AND improve scalability of the router network so we can push
more traffic through it.

My frank opinion regarding improving the former (broadcast or
unstructured review) is that it cuts into the area of motivation and
incentive, and we as the organization can only do so much here by
making sure people find required information easier, maybe give more
credits, etc. I personally do not know how to make sure more people
"care about the Internet" more...

Alex

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:59:15 -0800

Dimitri,

Thanks for your input. Answer below.

Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 5:50:13 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
[...]
> are these networking or protocol interaction related, or both and/or

This is a broad term that we probably want to leave undefined, but
that implies effects on and interactions between different parts of
the Internet or mechanisms/protocols used in IP networks, scalability,
stability, security characteristics, etc.

Alex

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:13:58 -0600

Alex,

My bad, also. What I actually meant to say was "between anything icar
PROPOSES and other review improvements", but you couldn't tell that
from the way my fingers betrayed me on the keyboard ("really, I'm much
smarter than my e-mail would lead you to believe ...").

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
> >>   1. Do you believe that a WG should be formed to work on
improving
> many proposals we have (SIR, CREW, ART, etc.), as well as the

If icar owns the ambulance syndrome problem, please include this in
the charter. It is not a small consideration.

Thanks,

Spencer