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

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:05 -0700

$Id: draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02-rev.txt,v 1.2 2007/10/08 01:38:07 ekr Exp $

I don't find the motivation for this work particularly compelling:

   In some situations, while interest on the part of IETF participants
   and end-users may be evident, and the relevance to the Internet
   community may be demonstrated, the answer to other questions (such as
   an understanding of existing work, achievability of goals, or overlap
   with existing working groups or standards bodies) may not be as
   clear.  In the past, the likely outcome in this circumstance has been
   to postpone Working Group formation or even additional Birds of a
   Feather (BOF) sessions until satisfactory answers are forthcoming.
   However, in practice this may leave the status of the potential
   Working Group officially undetermined for months or even years.
   While the Area Directors should provide potential Working Group
   participants timely updates on the status of the potential Working
   Group and insight into IESG or IAB concerns, currently there is no
   mechanism to track progress toward working group creation, and as a
   result, participants may not have a clear understanding of the status
   or the next steps.  Also, the lack of formal recognition may
   negatively affect the motivation of the participants, and may leave
   those who have no followed the effort closely with an impression that
   no work is going on.

I think there's a more meta-issue here: do we think it would be good
for the IETF to have more WGs? If the answer is "yes, then it makes
sense to foster new work in various ways. If the answer is "no" then
it makes sense to treat getting an effort ready for WG formation as a
proxy for the level of readiness of that effort. My general feeling is
that the answer is "no." In some areas, such as RAI, every slot is
filled and there are sometimes double bookings.  Even in other areas,
conflicts are a serious problem and documents that everyone agrees are
important languish for lack of attention.  So, I'm not sure why a
change that's designed to make WG formation easier is a good
thing--nor that experimenting with such a change is.

A related issue is that this puts pressure on ADs to approve SGs for
efforts that they would ordinarily simply refuse WGs for. I.e.,
"OK, so you won't give us a WG, how about a SG". Currently this
document simply has it at the IESG's discretion:

   If at any point during the Working Group formation process, including
   after a first or second BoF session, interest within the IETF and
   end-user community has been demonstrated, but one or more Working
   Group formation criteria outlined in [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not
   yet been met, the IESG MAY propose that a Study Group be formed.

This seems ripe for abuse of the kind I outlined above. IMO this
document would benefit from a clearer statement of the conditions
under which it was appropriate to form an SG, thus reducing pressure
on ADs. Arguably, SG formation should be subject to an IETF LC in the
same way that WG formation is. 

Finally, it's unclear the extent to which SGs are intended to
transition directly to WGs without going through another BOF
phase. I have two concerns here:

1. It will be hard for the IESG to deny "successful" SGs the right
   to form a WG.
2. BOFs are a defined in-person event at which everyone knows that
   WG formation is being considered. This provides an opportunity
   for public high bandwidth discussion of that topic. I don't
   think an LC on the IETF list is an adequate substitute.

Both of these issues are exacerbated by the tendency of running WGs
(and I would expect SGs) to become insular. 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.

In response to these objections, one might argue that this is only
experiment, intended to evaluate the workability of a proposed change.
That is of course true, but because we can only run a relatively
small number of such experiments, it seems to me that one ought
to ensure that:

1. The experiment is in service of a goal which we all pretty
   much agree is good (since it's much harder to evaluate that
   than whether the goal was achieved.)
2. The experiment be designed to test the best available variant
   of an idea.
3. The experiment be structured to do the minimal amount of harm 
   if it fails.

It's not clear to me that this proposed experiment meets these
desiderata.

-Ekr

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:03:35 +0300

Eric,

Thanks for your comments. A couple of responses inline:

> "OK, so you won't give us a WG, how about a SG".

First, this proposal does in no way change the situation that the
ADs have to say NO a lot of the time, and be able to justify that
answer. Just as a data point from one AD, I have given that answer
to many BOF requests and WG formation requests, and I don't feel
saying no to something in between is going to be a problem :-)
assuming the group indeed is not ready.

But the issues with scheduling, lack of attention for important
topics, and low quality of new work proposals are real concerns.
I have a slightly different take on this than what you had above,
however.

INT is probably the most troublesome area with respect
to scheduling, and I generally do not have any free slots
during an IETF meeting. However, I don't think this
implies we shouldn't consider new work. Its not as if
the Internet was ready and nothing new was ever
needed. We have a number of serious issues and
new demands to meet. But we need to actively manage
the set of things we work on. Some of the tools
we need to consider include actually stopping WGs
that have completed their task, rechartering, management
restructuring (e.g., merging groups), questioning
whether a non-delivering WG needs to continue
to exist and consume slots, and yes, even new work.

> Currently this
> on ADs. 

This would be helpful. Bernard, Laksminath, any ideas?

> Arguably, SG formation should be subject to an IETF LC in the

Hm. I believed this was already the case. SGs are subject to exactly
the same process as WGs, and I was assuming that like, WG formation,
SG formation would include discussion in the IESG, consultation
with the IAB, and IETF Last Call.

Perhaps this needs clarification. Authors?

> 1. It will be hard for the IESG to deny "successful" SGs the right

Saying NO is still going to be needed.

>    think an LC on the IETF list is an adequate substitute.

Good point. Bernard, Laksminath -- any ideas here?

> 3. The experiment be structured to do the minimal amount of harm 

In IESG review of this proposal, one of the things we talked about was
whether there is a way to limit this experiment so that we can indeed
test the idea but avoid impacting everyone. One of the suggestions
was to set a limit on the number of SGs during the experiment to
some low value, such as three. I would be in favor of this limitation.

Jari

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:57:24 -0700

At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:03:35 +0300,
> to exist and consume slots, and yes, even new work.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider new work either,
and we do consider new work under the current system. However,
since the amount of work we can do is to a great degree constant,
that means that any new work should be more important than
whatever we're doing now. Making it easier to start new
work (which is pretty much an explicit goal of this proposal)
is likely to create a situation in which more new work gets
done at the expense of current work. That might or might
not be good depending on what one thinks of the current work.

> Saying NO is still going to be needed.

Absolutely. But I think this is going to create a structural
near-imperative to saying yes, in the same way that the IESG
feels strong pressure to advance documents from chartered
WGs, even if it's clear in retrospect that the output isn't
of much value and probably shouldn't have been chartered in
the first place.

-Ekr

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:15:14 +0200

Inline please,

> of much value and probably shouldn't have been chartered in

don't no if I and Ekr is saying the same thing, what I'm wary about
is expectations created, an AD accepting a BoF creates expectations,
creating a Study Group would do so to a larger extent

/Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                           [email-masked]

This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:48 +0200

If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be to provide
ADs some indication of level of interest and ability to succeed.  I see
no reason why we need to formalize this within the IETF.  Furthemore,
the terminology is problematic.  We are overlapping a term that is
commonly used by the ITU the way working group is used by the IETF. 
Let's not make the process any more confusing than it already is.
Finally, milestones for such "study groups" seem to me inappropriate. 
It may be that a topic is uninteresting for quite a while and then picks
up.  ANY way to demonstrate that interest and ability to succeed should
be sufficient, regardless of how much time has passed.

Eliot

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:45:44 +0200

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. In the absence of such a
process what we see in many cases is the formation of ad-hoc groups,
which is not necessarily bad - but why not charter them with a set of
clear questions which may help the IESG and the whole community reach a
more educated decision? 

Regarding terminology, the term 'study group' is used in this proposal
in a way similar to how the IEEE is using it. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:30 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla
> Cc: Jari Arkko; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
> 
> If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be to 
> provide ADs some indication of level of interest and ability 
> to succeed.  I see no reason why we need to formalize this 
> within the IETF.  Furthemore, the terminology is problematic. 
>  We are overlapping a term that is commonly used by the ITU 
> the way working group is used by the IETF. 
> It may be that a topic is uninteresting for quite a while and 
> then picks up.  ANY way to demonstrate that interest and 
> ability to succeed should be sufficient, regardless of how 
> much time has passed.
> 
> Eliot
>

---

From: Gabriel Montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:19:52 -0700

I have seen the functioning of SGs at the IEEE and agree that they can be useful, but I'm not sure about how it is being "translated" into the IETF>
 
It occurs to me that we don't need to invent a new process here. The IRTF houses different types of "research" groups: some are meant
to be long-lived, some are meant to meet during IETF, some never meet, etc. There also are some RGs that have operated in a manner 
similar to the study groups being proposed: NSRG (name spaces research group), for example. And some that have been started as an
alternative to petitions to form a WG, and which would seriously benefit from
having a tighter charter with specific milestones and expectations (e.g., p2prg RG). 
 
RGs are created with all sorts of different goals in mind. All that the IESG needs here, I think, is to start an RG to probe further into
a given issue, and keep it on a short leash along the lines stipulated for the SG: e.g., milestones, meetings during IETF, explicit IESG liaison, etc.
But the point is that these conditions need not be the same for each such RG/SG.
 
I also think this is something useful the IRTF could do, as most often than not, it actually doesn't do any research. The IESG wins, the IRTF wins,
the IETF wins.
 
-gabriel

> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:45:44 +0200> From: [email-masked]> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]> CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02> > 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. In the absence of such a> process what we see in many cases is the formation of ad-hoc groups,> which is not necessarily bad - but why not charter them with a set of> clear questions which may help the IESG and the whole community reach a> more educated decision? > > Regarding terminology, the term 'study group' is used in this proposal> in a way similar to how the IEEE is using it. > > Dan> > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]] > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:30 PM> > To: Eric Rescorla> > Cc: Jari Arkko; [email-masked]; [email-masked]> > Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02> > > > If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be to > > provide ADs some indication of level of interest and ability > > to succeed. I see no reason why we need to formalize this > > within the IETF. Furthemore, the terminology is problematic. > > We are overlapping a term that is commonly used by the ITU > > the way working group is used by the IETF. > > Let's not make the process any more confusing than it already is.> > Finally, milestones for such "study groups" seem to me inappropriate. > > It may be that a topic is uninteresting for quite a while and > > then picks up. ANY way to demonstrate that interest and > > ability to succeed should be sufficient, regardless of how > > much time has passed.> > > > Eliot> > > > _______________________________________________> Ietf mailing list> [email-masked]> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:28:59 +0300

Gabriel,
 
> It occurs to me that we don't need to invent a new process here. The
> IRTF houses different types of "research" groups:

We don't _have_ to invent new process -- in addition to IRTF
RGs, there's obviously the default option of keeping post-BOF /
pre-WG efforts outside the formal IETF process until they have
reached the bar for full WG approval.

However, the question is what makes sense and what is the
best tool for the task.

We certainly could use RGs too -- and we do. RRG, HIP RG,
etc. However, I think this approach is suitable for groups
that have a significant research component. It seems
less suitable for groups that are merely looking for
a standard in the engineering space. (And I know I'm
spending a lot of time with the new work proposals; I'm not
sure Aaron & co would be so happy to receive new groups
unless they really were about research.)

Jari

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:36:12 -0500

I have been somewhat troubled at the discussion about the SG draft and proposed experiment, and I think part of the reason is that there's a range of leashes being envisioned, with everything from "study groups are where the villagers riot" to "the process for forming a study group is indistinguishable from forming a working group".

If the SG process gets sufficiently close to the WG process, I don't see the point. If you have to be able to convince a reluctant AD, why would you not request a BOF? At least within RAI, the running code is "meet as a SIPPING ad hoc, either at lunch or at 10:30 PM", and there doesn't seem to be much process wrapped around that.

There are enough positive things about Gab's suggestion (to use the IRTF as a home for WG explorations, in addition to research) that I'd like to see a proposal for this alternative.

Dan (and Gab) have been around the IEEE a lot more than I have, but one of the translation issues I'm wondering about is that the go/no-go decision in IEEE seems a lot more straighforward in IEEE than in IETF - if you have a plausible PAR and reasonable answers to the Five Criteria, doesn't the decision tend toward "go"? 

At least in RAI, we've been approving new working groups fairly frequently, but there have been times, especially in specific areas, where there was a lot of resistance to chartering new working groups, based solely on the number of existing working groups and the load that places on ADs (http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-klensin-overload-00.txt might have been outside the mainstream, but I don't think John and Marshall were WAY outside the mainstream in their 2002 draft).

I am intrigued by the idea that we can't charter new work because we have too many working groups now, because a quick examination of my own area shows about five-or-so working groups that are amazingly close to closing down, but they do not seem to close down, IETF after IETF. Is this different in other areas?

I would ask people to spend a little time thinking about the idea that the number of slots in an IETF week should determine the number of chartered working groups. That seems like the tail wagging the dog.

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gabriel Montenegro 
  To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) ; Eliot Lear ; Eric Rescorla 
  Cc: Jari Arkko ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:19 AM
  Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

   

  -gabriel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:45:44 +0200
  > From: [email-masked]
  > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
  > CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
  > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
  > 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today! 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700

Thanks Jari, Eric.  Some notes inline ...

On 10/8/2007 12:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
<snip>
>> under which it was appropriate to form an SG, thus reducing pressure

I am not sure what kind of "abuse" you are worried about Eric.  Please 
clarify.

> This would be helpful. Bernard, Laksminath, any ideas?

I don't think we should make it algorithmic and instead should leave the 
steering, direction and judgment aspects of an IESG job intact.  That 
said, my expectation is that the sponsoring AD is responsible for 
considering the general guidance the draft offers and making a decision 
on whether to form an SG, suggest a(nother) BoF session, form a WG, or 
say that the work is not appropriate at the IETF at the time, etc.

The motivating text is:

"In some situations, while interest on the part of IETF participants
    clear. "

The guiding text is:

"Study Groups MAY be formed
    by the IESG when there is evidence of clear interest in a topic on
    the part of IETF participants and end-users, but other criteria
    relating to Working Group formation (including creation of a
    satisfactory Charter) have not yet been met."

We could make the guiding text more precise (perhaps include some 
specific criteria), if that is what the community wants.

> Perhaps this needs clarification. Authors?

We could clarify, but the intent is to follow the WG process for formation.

> Good point. Bernard, Laksminath -- any ideas here?

I disagree with Eric here.  I believe that we are not a meeting based 
organization and should be making more of these important decisions via 
email where we have more time to consider the proposals carefully.  My 
observation based on some of the BoFs I have been involved with recently 
is that far too much time is wasted between two BoF sessions.  With 
little or no discussion between sessions, a good portion of the meeting 
time is used to get on the same page (again).

That aside, if the sponsoring AD believes that the in-person events are 
important, they may suggest a BoF as a first step to bringing new work 
to the IETF.  An SG may come after that.

regards,
Lakshminath

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:28:06 +0200

Yes, and this translates in IETF speech into having a viable technical
concept which is caught in a sound charter, proved resources and
community interest plus early code and individual I-Ds as very desirable
additions. 
 
A SG process would not replace those, but could help achieve them in a
more structured manner, or alternatively help the community and the IESG
realize that it's not the case or the time for this work to happen. 
 
Dan

________________________________

	From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 

	Dan (and Gab) have been around the IEEE a lot more than I have,
but one of the translation issues I'm wondering about is that the
go/no-go decision in IEEE seems a lot more straighforward in IEEE than
in IETF - if you have a plausible PAR and reasonable answers to the Five
Criteria, doesn't the decision tend toward "go"?

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:28:06 +0200

Dan

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:30:13 -0700

X-BeenTh</STYLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=3Dhmmessage bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D546002218-08102007>Yes, and this translates in IETF speech into =
having a=20
viable technical concept which is caught in a sound charter, proved =
resources=20
and&nbsp;community interest plus&nbsp;early&nbsp;code and individual =
I-Ds as=20
very desirable additions. </SPAN></FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D546002218-08102007></SPAN></FONT></EM></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D546002218-08102007>A=20
SG process would not replace those, but could help achieve them in a =
more=20
structured manner, or alternatively help the community and the IESG =
realize that=20
it's not the case or the time for this work to happen.=20
</SPAN></FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D546002218-08102007></SPAN></FONT></EM></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D546002218-08102007>Dan</SPAN></FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D546002218-08102007></SPAN></FONT></EM></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma><B>From:</B> Spencer Dawkins =
[mailto:[email-masked]]=20
  <BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Dan (and Gab) have been around the IEEE a lot =
more than=20
  I have, but one of the translation issues I'm wondering about is that =
the=20
  go/no-go decision in IEEE seems a lot more straighforward in IEEE than =
in IETF=20
  - if you have a plausible PAR and reasonable answers to the Five =
Criteria,=20
  doesn't&nbsp;the decision tend toward "go"? </FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C809D8.F90D8083--

--===============1071284066==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--===============1071284066==--

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:30:13 -0700

At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
> I am not sure what kind of "abuse" you are worried about Eric.  Please 

You trimmed out the section where I explained:

To clarify, the reasonably high bar for WG formation plus the two
BOF rule has the effect of enabling ADs to say so "No" to work
that really is not ready. The concern is that efforts which are
denied WGs will turn around and ask for an SG and that it will
be difficult to turn them down even though they really need to go 
back to the drawing board.

> steering, direction and judgment aspects of an IESG job intact.

Nor did I argue differently. However, there is a difference between
exercising judgement and unguided sole discretion. My concern is
that the language in the draft errs to far in the latter direction.

> specific criteria), if that is what the community wants.

Yes, I think this would be valuable.

> We could clarify, but the intent is to follow the WG process for formation.

In that case, I think it needs clarification.

> email where we have more time to consider the proposals carefully. 

Well, you might ere: [email-masked]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
> I am not sure what kind of "abuse" you are worried about Eric.  Please 

You trimmed out the section where I explained:

To clarify, the reasonably high bar for WG formation plus the two
BOF rule has the effect of enabling ADs to say so "No" to work
that really is not ready. The concern is that efforts which are
denied WGs will turn around and ask for an SG and that it will
be difficult to turn them down even though they really need to go 
back to the drawing board.

> steering, direction and judgment aspects of an IESG job intact.

Nor did I argue differently. However, there is a difference between
exercising judgement and unguided sole discretion. My concern is
that the language in the draft errs to far in the latter direction.

> specific criteria), if that is what the community wants.

Yes, I think this would be valuable.

> We could clarify, but the intent is to follow the WG process for formation.

In that case, I think it needs clarification.

> email where we have more time to consider the proposals carefully. 

Well, you might prefer that the IETF functioned this way, but I think
it pretty clearly does not. As a practical matter, nearly all WGs have
BOFs prior to their formation, and that's the only time that there
is high-bandwidth cross-area discussion. That same discussion by and
large does not happen on the IETF mailing list during LC. IMO the
effect of eliminating the in-person time will be to eliminate said
discussion, not transfer it to the mailing list. If you wish the IETF
to do more work via email, I think the first step would be to improve
the quality of the email discussion.

> My 

I consider this a good indicator that the work is not ready to bring
to the IETF.

-Ekr

prefer that the IETF functioned this way, but I think
it pretty clearly does not. As a practical matter, nearly all WGs have
BOFs prior to their formation, and that's the only time that there
is high-bandwidth cross-area discussion. That same discussion by and
large does not happen on the IETF mailing list during LC. IMO the
effect of eliminating the in-person time will be to eliminate said
discussion, not transfer it to the mailing list. If you wish the IETF
to do more work via email, I think the first step would be to improve
the quality of the email discussion.

> My 

I consider this a good indicator that the work is not ready to bring
to the IETF.

-Ekr

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:43:31 +1300

> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:

<big snip>

> I consider this a good indicator that the work is not ready to bring

Eric, you're probably assuming that discussion groups will
automatically form around viable BOF proposals, and proceed in
a reasonably organized way. That's certainly necessary for
success. My feeling is that as the IETF expands its reach
to more and more countries and time zones, it's become
progressively harder for such self-organization to happen.

I see Study Groups as a way to use IETF resources to
support those discussion groups, instead of leaving them to
self-organize. It seems reasonable to test out the idea,
but it should certainly be made clear that SGs may flunk
out.

     Brian

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:30:54 -0700

On 10/8/2007 1:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> My observation based on some of the BoFs I have been involved with 
>>> recently is that far too much time is wasted between two BoF 
>>> sessions.  With little or no discussion between sessions, a good 
>>> portion of the meeting time is used to get on the same page (again).
>>

Yes, one of the possible outcomes of an SG may be documentation of the 
discussion and the conclusions in non-standards track documents and 
closure of the SG.

regards,
Lakshminath

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:15:51 +0200

Yes, but RGs are not initiated by the IESG but by the IRTF and they are focused on research oriented charters. Many of the issues faced by folks that discuss the possible formation of new WGs are engineering rather than research issues. 
 
Dan

	From: Gabriel Montenegro [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:20 PM
	To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Eliot Lear; Eric Rescorla
	Cc: Jari Arkko; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

	 

	-gabriel

	

	Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today! <http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline>

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:40:47 +0700

Date:        Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:48 +0200
    From:        Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | We are overlapping a term that is
  | commonly used by the ITU the way working group is used by the IETF. 
  | Let's not make the process any more confusing than it already is.

Yes, avoiding that kind of confusion, when it is so easy to accomplish
by careful choices at the start is definitely the right thing to do.

"Study" is just the acquisition of knowledge right, so instead of
study, let's say knowledge aquisition  instead (it's only ever going
to be used as its acronym anyway, right?)

Now, KAG or AKG aren't quite right., and GAK probably isn't what anyone
really wants, so instead call it worthless acquisition of needless knowledge.

kre

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:30:23 +0300

Eric,

> and we do consider new work under the current system.

OK

> However,

I think the goal should be to make the process itself smooth,
and concentrate on the question of relevance, feasibility,
community support, and available resources as the deciding
factors for taking up new work.

> of much value and probably shouldn't have been chartered in

The structural near-imperative is somewhat self-inflicted, IMHO.
I would not want to have such a policy for SG to WG transition,
and I think this could be made clear in the proposal if it
isn't already.

Jari

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:58:58 -0400

>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> writes:

    Eliot> If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be
    Eliot> to provide ADs some indication of level of interest and
    Eliot> ability to succeed.  

Hmm.  As I read the document, level of interest is explicitly out of
scope for the experiment.  That needs to be determined first.

Who is confused, you or I?
Does the document need to be updated to be more clear?

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:56:02 -0400

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> writes:

    Eric> I think there's a more meta-issue here: do we think it would
    Eric> be good for the IETF to have more WGs? If the answer is
    Eric> "yes, then it makes sense to foster new work in various
    Eric> ways. If the answer is "no" then it makes sense to treat
    Eric> getting an effort ready for WG formation as a proxy for the
    Eric> level of readiness of that effort. My general feeling is
    Eric> that the answer is "no." In some areas, such as RAI, every
    Eric> slot is filled and there are sometimes double bookings.
    Eric> Even in other areas, conflicts are a serious problem and
    Eric> documents that everyone agrees are important languish for
    Eric> lack of attention.  So, I'm not sure why a change that's
    Eric> designed to make WG formation easier is a good thing--nor
    Eric> that experimenting with such a change is.

Speaking as an individual, I think the answer to this question is a
lot closer to yes than to no.  The answer is definitely closer to yes
if an effort is likely to bring in a number of participants who do not
normally participate in the IETF.

    Eric> A related issue is that this puts pressure on ADs to approve
    Eric> SGs for efforts that they would ordinarily simply refuse WGs
    Eric> for. I.e., "OK, so you won't give us a WG, how about a
    Eric> SG". Currently this document simply has it at the IESG's
    Eric> discretion:

I think that Ad can manage this risk.  ADs tend to get reasonably good
at saying no.

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

It's my understanding of the document that SG formation is subject to
ietf-wide review.  I'm not sure that the IETF review in RFC 2418 nor
the same IETF review for SG formation is quite the same as an IETF LC,
but I do think the same IETF and IAB involvement is anticipated in the
SG process.  The IAB is not involved in proposing SG formation
initially, although they are involved in reviewing whether that is a
good idea before it goes out to the wider IETF community.

I have no thoughts on the rest of your comments at this time.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:12:20 -0400

> Does the document need to be updated to be more clear?

What is the result of a "SG" hitting its mile stones?

Eliot

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:24:46 -0400

>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> writes:

    Eliot> What is the result of a "SG" hitting its mile stones?

We move on to evaluating its work.

Now, there is a question of what happens when an SG misses its
milestones.  I could see an argument that hints at us being wrong that
we had sufficient interest.  Or perhaps an argument that the task we
set the SG was harder than anticipated.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:10:58 -0400

Sam,
> set the SG was harder than anticipated.

As I wrote earlier, I am not at all sure that we should even have dates
associated with milestones with this kind of experiment.  What is the
anticipated administrative load?  If we can keep it to nothingness such
that an AD can simply have these things (and I still maintain that it
should barely require even an AD's approval), then WHENEVER a group hits
those milestones we know that it's time to pay more attention.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:37:26 +1300

On 2007-10-11 21:10, Eliot Lear wrote:
...

> associated with milestones with this kind of experiment. 

I'm afraid that this would allow people to game the IETF by abusing
the SG mechanism to give their effort an appearance of open-ended
status. We probably don't want to see CV's including lines like
"chair of IETF foobar Study Group, 2008-2011".

    Brian