Subject: RE: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:36:21 +0300

I'm of conflicting thoughts about this. On one hand, more Ads could
have more opportunity to do more hands-on work with working groups, etc.
This would be a good thing, and could potentially help WGs to progress
drafts through WGs faster.

On the other hand, 2 more ADs means two more potential DISCUSSes and
more Ads spending time on document reviews.  I'm not sure if what the
IETF needs is more Ads to review the documents and file DISCUSSes.

If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be
a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area would be one
way
to reduce this could be one solution. 

In summary, I think that expanding the IESG would only be a good idea
only 
if we could adjust the IESG review load / process so that we are not
just
expanding the number of potential DISCUSSes.

thanks,
John

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext IETF Chair
>Sent: 16 September, 2005 16:14
>To: IETF Announcement list
>Subject: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture 
>(RAI) Area 
>
>As mentioned in the recent call for NomCom volunteers, the 
>IESG is considering the creation of a new area, as set out 
>below.  We solicit feedback from the community on the scope of 
>this potential new area as well as the impact on the IETF's 
>infrastructure and efficiency of setting up this new area. We 
>need to decide quite quickly, to fit the NomCom schedule.
>
>Please write to [email-masked], or to [email-masked] if you want 
>community discussion of your comment. (There's no need to 
>write to both!)
>
>   Brian Carpenter
>
>-----------------
>
>Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area Description
>
>The Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure Area develops 
>protocols and architectures for delay-sensitive interpersonal 
>communications. Work in this area serves an emerging industry 
>whose applications and services include voice and video over 
>IP, instant messaging and presence. These applications and 
>services are "real-time" in the sense that delay impedes human 
>participation in the associated systems.
>
>The RAI Area is seeded with existing working groups from the 
>Transport and Applications Area: SIP, SIPPING, XCON, SIMPLE, 
>GEOPRIV, ECRIT, ENUM, IPTEL, MEGACO, MMUSIC, IEPREP, SPEECHSC, 
>and SIGTRAN.  A good rule of thumb for the incorporation of 
>new work into RAI, as opposed to Transport or Applications, is 
>that the work in question has major goals supporting instant 
>interpersonal communication or its infrastructure.
>For example, they can range from applications to help users 
>make decisions about how best to communicate using presence 
>services, to session signaling protocols and emergency call 
>routing solutions, to work on the "layer five" issues for 
>Internet telephony.
>
>Like all areas of the IETF, the RAI Area draws on the work of 
>numerous other areas, and as such there can be no neat 
>mathematical boundaries delineating RAI's work from the rest 
>of the IETF. The new area will allow an existing community 
>within the IETF to solidify its vision and to benefit from 
>increased institutional support.
>
>_______________________________________________
>IETF-Announce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

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

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:54:43 -0400

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [email-masked] wrote:
> would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
> would be one way to reduce this could be one solution. 

Why do you think this would make any difference in practice?  chances
are that an AD-pair would agree to hold a DISCUSS if either felt that an
issue should block publication.

>From my point of view, a far greater source of delay is the
extraordinarily rapid change in the standards applied to documents by
the IESG; it seems that, if your document editor is very busy, by the
time a document is reworked to address one set of editorial standards, a
new requirement (leading to a new blocking DISCUSS) is likely to appear.

seems like we could avoid this sort of logrolling by judging a document
based on the rules published and in force at the time it was submitted
to the IESG.

					- Bill

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:48 +0200

Bill,

> issue should block publication.

As I have had to remind people of before, DISCUSSes aren't intended to
"block" publication - they are intended to start a discussion with the
authors and WG about how to resolve an issue. If the IESG actually wants
to block a document, it's more explicit and relatively rare.

However, you're correct - an Area DISCUSS would likely be the OR
of the two AD's opinions. And it's impractical, because there is generally
less than a week between a document appearing on the agenda and the moment
when the AD needs to enter a ballot.

> new requirement (leading to a new blocking DISCUSS) is likely to appear.

Well, that is why we published draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00
which includes among the non-criteria for a DISCUSS:

    o  Pedantic corrections to non-normative text.  ...
    o  Stylistic issues of any kind.  ...
    o  There is recent work or additional information that might be added
       to the document.  ...
    o  New issues with unchanged text in documents previously reviewed by
       the AD in question. ...
> based on the rules published and in force at the time it was submitted

They aren't rules, they're guidelines, in general. However, I largely
agree with you - another reason for the above draft. But there are
surely exceptions (e.g. new IPR rules, a newly discovered security threat)
where currency is essential.

    Brian