Subject: Re: Workshop effects [Re: The IETF environment]

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 10:21:02 +0100

I agree that IAB is not having a good way/method to interact with the
community through IETF to make effects or good relationship with community
to be documented successfully with value. IAB just uses the IETF list to
interact which I say if measured the result is with low value. I recommend
IETF WG interaction with IAB, then a document raised which will have a IETF
LC on this list. My comments below,

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 26/04/2014 16:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > On 4/25/2014 9:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>   But if the
> >> IAB holds a workshop on ploomdoogleblits,

What is ploomdoogleblits? I know that IAB holds workshops on architecture
and technologies.

> >> which will undoubtedly
> >> include some IESG members and some people who aren't members of
> >> the I* at all, some ideas will emerge about how the IETF should
> >> respond to the ploomdoogleblit work that is going on in academia or
> >> industry. Drafts will appear,
> >
> >
> > It could be interesting to document this presumed cause/effect
> > relationship.
>

Those relationship documents are not only interesting but also needed for
the future progress, WGs should do some discussions on that at each IETF
Area (maybe they don't do that type of discuss because there is no WG in
the general area).

> >
> > Start with a listing of every workshop.  Then indicate the related I-Ds
> > that were initiated afterwards.  Then indicate which ones made it to RFC.
>
> It may be more subtle than that. Other possible effects of workshops
> include *preventing* work, or diverting work to another SDO. And the
> sample size is low - I certainly didn't mean to imply that this is
> the major source of IETF innovation. Also, counting drafts and RFCs
> doesn't measure value.
>

The drafts number and RFCs are part of the parameters that help to measure
value and quality, when you count which ones have most been
used/commented-on by the community.

>
> Another thing is timescale. Let me give you an example which is not
> IAB related. In December 1998 there was an ad hoc workshop on
> middleware, reported in RFC 2768 in 2000. It was part of the thread
> of activity that led to the Globus toolkit and the Global Grid Forum
> (now the Open Grid Forum) and then to this stuff called Cloud Computing.
> So for *big* innovations, we're talking about very complex threads of
> activity and timescales of more than a decade. Picking apart the
> contribution of a single workshop is going to be very hard.
>

We need to start some where. So start with one simple workshop as RFC, and
then update that RFC while things go one and more related subject workshop
held. We pick best contributions of any related workshop into the draft/RFC.

>
> On balance I decline to make an amateur analysis of all this. I think
> it needs a much deeper study by someone who is an expert in tracking
> the history of technology.
>

I did not think that there are more experts than IETFers!, so IETF needs to
follow up this issue within IETF General Area, and maybe we need an
expert WG in there.

>
> One thing I'm fairly sure of. Some of what the IRTF+IETF does is
> R&D, and R&D is allowed to fail. If there's no risk of abject failure,
> there's also no chance of great success.
>

R&D needs organisation and focus, we usually do our best practice focus in
developing-technology in our IETF Areas (which have WGs). Due to that our
IETF General Area is empty of focused efforts/forces, then we may get
failures very easy. Success is not by individual works/drafts of the IETF
General Area, we need more team work as WG to make our future successful
into our R&D or into future trends or into the community relationship of
RFCs. IAB should work close with WGs of IETF General Area, because IMHO, WG
means the community (that is missing so the relationship is missing).

AB