Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02.txt> (Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change Process.) to Best Current Practice

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Dec 2015 20:59:04 -0000

>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change Process.'
>  <draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02.txt> as Best Current Practice

I've taken a look and generally support this draft, which brings the
DISPATCH WG model to the new combined RAI area.

Two editorial requests: please give it a name that better reflects
what it's about, something like "Operation of DISPATCH style working
groups and the SIP Change Process."  since it's about 95% about
DISPATCH and has only a few sentences saying SIPCORE still does
what it does.

The other is just to update its contents: the merger of APPS and RAI
into ART has happened, and it is my impression from the Yokohama
meeting that DISPATCH still does what it does, and has absorbed some
of the chartering stuff that would otherwise go through APPSAWG.  This
may not quite be right, but whatever we decided we're doing, it would
be nice if the draft described it.

R's,
John

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 21:27:43 -0500

That assumes that some of us believe that the RAI APP merger was a good idea in the first place.

I do not believe it was a good idea. And reality seems to confirm my belief.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:05:53 +0100

Objection:

I find the DISPATCH style of review to be a horribly broken idea.

I also find the use of the term "working group", and the procedures of
working groups, for what is effectively a permanent review panel and a
standing BOF venue to be counterproductive and destructive of getting
work done.

This document proposes recommending this method as a generic tool that
can be used in areas outside of the limited scope of SIP extensions -
something I think is taking a bad idea and making it even more harmful.
(RFC 5727 already said it would do that, but the RAI area has not
followed up on this particular bad idea from RFC 5727, letting
initiatives like WEBRTC flourish outside of the DISPATCH process, so the
damage done by DISPATCH has been limited.)

I therefore object to this document being published as a BCP.

Note: I would not object to publishing a document saying "the DISPATCH
working group is now part of the ART area". It would be useless, but not
harmful.

Den 08. des. 2015 16:56, skrev The IESG:
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2016-01-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>    RFC 5727 defines several processes for the Real-time Applications and
>    Infrastructure (RAI) area.  These processes include the evolution of
>    the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related protocols, as well
>    as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups.  This
>    document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility for the area and
>    working group structure, while preserving the SIP change processes.
>    It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group processes so that they
>    can be easily adopted by other working groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:53:54 -0600

> I find the DISPATCH style of review to be a horribly broken idea.
[MB] For those of us that were involved in the RAI/TSV area before
DISPATCH, the process solved a number of real problems such as work group
shopping, delays in getting work moved forward as well as the insanity of
the SIPPING WG.   Now, things have changed in terms of the volume of new
work, so perhaps we no longer need this type of process and we can go back
to the adhoc way in which things were handled previously.

> standing BOF venue to be counterproductive and destructive of getting
[MB] Certainly, it doesn't fit a typical working group model and really is
more of an area working group, but it's not run as a permanent review panel
nor standing Bof.   All discussion happens on the work group mailing list
other than a single call with the ADs and DISPATCH WG chairs and the output
of that call is published on the WG mailing list for community feedback.
I'm just curious if you could provide at least one concrete example of the
counterproductive and destructive aspects of the process.  What work didn't
get done that you think ought to have gotten done because of the process?
 [/MB]

> damage done by DISPATCH has been limited.)
[MB] Actually, WebRTC still ran under the process in that it was quite
clear from the get go that it was a large work item with a very broad scope
for which the entire community ought to be involved.  Honestly, if you
could point out other work that we've dispatched without a Bof that you
think ought to have been Bofed, that would be great.  Now, my experience
with the process is clearly biased since I co-chaired the SIPPING WG and
have been a chair of DISPATCH since the WG was chartered and the difference
between how we handle new work has dramatically improved in timeliness and
getting the right people involved. Now, maybe I'm a lazy WG chair and am
just so happy that I don't have dozens of documents in process, but rather
a handful of AD sponsored documents to shepherd, that I'm missing some
critical flaw. [/MB]

> working group is now part of the ART area". It would be useless, but not
[MB] I certainly don't have the experience with other areas to know whether
it would be harmful if other areas adopted this model.  It would be good to
hear from other WG chairs on this topic. [/MB]

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:17:26 -0600

> I do not believe it was a good idea. And reality seems to confirm my 

Richard, can you elaborate on what reality has confirmed? Is your 
concern related to things that would be different if the areas hadn't 
merged?

Ben.

[...]