Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:49:51 -0700

Eric Rescorla said:

"Arguably, SG formation should be subject to an IETF LC in the same way that 
WG formation is."

I would agree -- and it would appear that this is already included in 
Section 3:

  Other than the abbreviated charter, the process for formation of a
  Study Group is identical to that of a Working Group, including
  announcement of the potential Study Group and a request for feedback
  from the IETF community.

"1. It will be hard for the IESG to deny "successful" SGs the right to form 
a WG."

Since successful is in quotes, are we really talking about "failed" SGs?  A 
SG can fail by not completing its milestones in time, and having the AD 
refuse to grant an extension, or it can fail by producing a Charter that 
fails to garner approval from the IESG/IAB, just as a proposed WG might.  
Perhaps we need a statement that the bar for transition from a SG to a WG is 
the same as one from a BOF to a WG?

"Since the point of a
BOF is to encourage widespread input and more or less by definition
an SG has failed at this stage, it seems unwise to allow SGs to
become WGs without a real public vetting stage."

Such a public vetting stage is built in because the SG charter and other 
documents will be reviewed by the IETF community.

Dan Romascanu said:

"The way I see it the problem that this proposal tries to solve is about
helping the IESG and the community to make a better decision when the
forming of the working group us discussed. It is not about bringing more
work to the IETF, it is about making sure to a better extent that the
right work is being brought into the IETF. "

I agree.  Presumably the SG will enable a more rigorous and complete 
examination of the WG formation criteria already set down in RFC 2418.  That 
should enable an AD to get a better idea of how well a SG would function if 
it were to be chartered as a WG.

Spencer Dawkins said:

"to use the IRTF as a home for WG explorations, in addition to research"

Unfortunately, there are very few examples of the IRTF being used 
successfully for this purpose.  Rather than being a step toward WG 
formation, the IRTF has often be used as a "consolation prize" for work that 
was far from the level of maturity required for WG formation.  Those RGs 
often dragged on for years often with little impact on the IETF.  The goal 
of SGs is more immediate -- for situations where interest already exists, 
but where 6-12 months of prepatory work would be likely to produce a solid 
foundation for a WG.

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