Subject: RE: Cost vs. Benefit of Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture Area

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:58:12 +0200

Most of the comments have questioned the "cost" of adding
2 ADs to the lucky number 13.

However, there are a other large numbers to consider.
For example 26 and 24 - the number of WGs in the transport
and Internet areas, respectively.

I have never seen a senior manager in a commercial enterprise
to whom 26 subordinates, each responsible for completely distinct  
disciplines, directly report.

Decreasing the number of WGs per area to a number that
can be reasonably managed and technically lead by the AD
is one of the advantages of the proposal.

And this will still leave a manageable 15 members in the IESG.

Y(J)S

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

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:14:01 -0700

Yaakov,

> is one of the advantages of the proposal.

Most Areas organize themselves in such a way that each AD manages
about half of the total. Having said that, even in that case, the
transport area is still quite large and there is indeed a misfit for
some working groups.

I do support a reorganization to address this problem. However, I
believe that we should try to do this reorganization without adding
more ADs to the IESG. Nobody has seriously looked at this option.

What we are proposing now is the traditional way how organizations
keep growing in size as we all get focussed on adding features to
solve our problems instead of balancing scarce resources and reducing
our coverage in areas that have grown less important or are relatively
small but are still served by two ADs. 

For example, I proposed that we could also add the Real-Time
Applications to the Applications area with a new updated charter to
reflect this change (Or add the Applications Area to the Real-Time
Applications area). That way, all these groups will be under the same
roof too without having to increase the number of ADs. Other solutions
are possible too, like creating this area but for example reducing the
number of ADs in other areas or combining them. I can even think of a
few variants where the Ops & Mgmt area gets some additional work at
the Mgmt side as we are for example already quite active with
infrastructure applications like Radius. We could in that case become
the Ops & Infrastructure Area.

I notice that nobody has really responded with suggestions on how this
could be achieved or with alternatives for my suggestion as there are
obviously many possible variants. Is it perhaps easier to let the
bureaucracy grow instead of looking seriously at ways to make us
operate more efficient ?

And growing before we have the structure in place to actually allow
this growth seems real risky: this is the perfect way to get to a
situation of total gridlock. This is what we have been doing in the
past and it hasn't worked so well. It is time to stop this.

> And this will still leave a manageable 15 members in the IESG.

First of all I don't believe that 15 members in the IESG is manageable
in any way or form. In fact, I believe that 13 members is already not
manageable.

Note that the next proposal for an additional area is just around the
corner: the Internet area has a very heavy load of working groups as
well and the next thing that could easily be imagined is a Mobility
Area which also sounds very reasonable.

Are we going to tell them then that they cannot have their own area
while we just added another one for Real-Time Applications ?

David Kessens
---

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:36:36 -0400

>>  disciplines, directly report.
[...]
>transport area is still quite large and there is indeed a misfit for

Of course, most WGs have two chairs, so you are right back to the 
number that Yaakov has cited.

I currently have 27 chairs of 14 WGs "reporting" to me in the IETF 
context.  Fortunately for me, most of these people are extremely 
senior and capable of operating independently.  I also get a lot of 
help from a lot of other people -- you know who you are, and I 
appreciate you.

There is a serious scaling issue here, and I think that it is a much 
more serious problem than any scaling issues that we are currently 
experiencing due to the size of the IESG.

I do completely support the creation of the new RAI area, both 
because I think it does make sense as a logical area, and because I 
think that it will help with AD->WG Chair scaling in the TSV and APPS 
space.  I do not think that the effect of adding two ADs to the IESG 
will be particularly problematic.

Margaret

---

From: C Wegrzyn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:00:02 -0400

Does this mean that we have a non-RAI group?  I am confused as  to where
things fit - are we talking about taking the core SIP protocol, for
example,  and moving it to RAI and leaving the rest where they are? How
about FTP? Where does XMPP fit in all this?

Chuck Wegrzyn

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> I do completely support the creation of the new RAI area, both because
> I think it does make sense as a logical area, and because I think that
> it will help with AD->WG Chair scaling in the TSV and APPS space.  I
> do not think that the effect of adding two ADs to the IESG will be
> particularly problematic.
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:51:40 -0400

On 9/21/05 3:14 PM, "David Kessens" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> obviously many possible variants.

That's not true - I raised the possibility of eliminating
areas entirely.  That would improve the agility of the
organization to adapt to change more generally.

I'm unclear on what specific problems you think that adding
a new area would introduce.  I'm not sure how big "too big"
is in this case.  I've been involved with a number of
consensus-based organizations in the past, and have found that
the decision-making process breaks down at between 20
and 25 participants.  However, that's a specific decision
model with specific reasons for failure, and I wouldn't
expect an organization with a different decision model to
fail at the same place or for the same reasons.  What do
you think will happen if the IESG grows by two?

Melinda

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:59:34 +0200

--On onsdag, september 21, 2005 16:51:40 -0400 Melinda Shore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> and 25 participants.

The two traditional breakpoints I've heard of in group dynamics are 
somewhere around seven and somewhere around 25 - around seven, you stop 
being able to have a discussion with everyone engaged at the same time; at 
25, you stop being able to do anything cooperative, and have to resort to 
"controlled" groups - basically, you switch to "lecture with questions" 
mode.

Disclaimer: I never knew much about the area, and I have forgotten most of 
what I learned.

                       Harald

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:03:09 +0200

On Sep 21, 2005, at 7:25, David Kessens wrote:
> I would have a lot less trouble with the proposal of adding an area if
> we would be able to find another one that could be abolished, or
> reorganize ourselves in some way or form that would result in no net
> addition of Area Directors.

> in any way or form. In fact, I believe that 13 members is already not

Have we (== the IETF) ever seriously considered splitting this
organisation "horizontally"?  That is, instead of having one IETF
worrying about all from sub-IP issues to (some) applications, have
two ones, one more focusing on issues at the IP layer and directly
above and below it, and the other one on issues "above" that?

Maybe doing that *all* the way, with two weeks of meetings, two IESGs,
two IABs, two SEC and OPS areas, etc?  Of course, that might be very
very bad for the Internet, and would certainly be burdensome for some
regular IETFers, basically doubling their time spend at IETF meetings.

However, <emph> might the benefit be greater than the cost? </emph>

If we think that a full split is unlikely to work out, might there
be other ways of adding management parallelism, preferably without
adding management depth?  For example, how important is it that
documents get reviewed by *all* current areas?  There are certainly
some "cross-layer" areas, such as SEC and OPS, that should worry
about all layers, but aren't the primary purpose of layering to
make sure that people working on the other end the stack can feel
safe to _mostly_ ignore details at the other end; e.g., that apps
people don't need to worry about the details of the routing?

I realise that any "horizontal" splitting is likely to cause
architectural problems in the long run, but in my very humble
opinion we are already now doing pretty badly w.r.t. the overall
evolution of the architecture.  In other words, I don't believe
that the current organisation and division of work is good for
the architecture, but that is a separate issue.  [In this mode of
splitting perhaps the IAB could be split vertically, forming an
Internet Administration/Appointments Board and an Internet
Architecture Board :-)]

Anyway, I am just trying to think outside of the box; this
suggestion should not be taken too seriously.  And perhaps this
all should even be discussed somewhere else and some other time.

My 2 cents.

--Pekka Nikander

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:28:06 +0200

Pekka,

Actually that has been discussed, as have the scope boundaries
at the "top" (apps) and "bottom" (sub-IP). And the diffculty always
is the need for cross-fertilization and cross-area review.

Do you think that applications protocols can be designed with
only a liaison relationship to transport, or transport with
only a liaison relationship to the network layer?

Anyway, thanks for changing the subject line for a new subject.

I think the answer lies in delegation, which is the way management
structures should handle parallelism and overload. But I'm getting
ahead of the PESCI process there.

    Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:41:59 -0400

Just for the record...

>while we just added another one for Real-Time Applications ?

I am very surprised by this statement...  There is no proposal on the 
table to form a "mobility area" and I don't know of anyone who is 
discussing this.  Mobility is quite close to the core of the Internet 
area, with close tie-ins to IP, addressing/address selection, 
multihoming, IP-in-IP tunneling, etc.  I would personally object to 
the idea of trying to separate IP and Mobility into separate areas.

We did have a discussion within the IESG about whether adding a third 
AD to the Internet area would be valuable.  I proposed this, because 
I believe that the Internet area, while generally being a coherent 
group, is quite large, and because I know that the nomcom has found 
it difficult to find two ADs who can fully cover the area, 
technically.  The IESG did not reach consensus that adding a third 
Internet AD was a good idea, though, so we do not currently plan to 
propose that to the community.

Margaret

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:01:48 +0300

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> Mobility is quite close to the core of the Internet area, with close 
> tie-ins to IP, addressing/address selection, multihoming, IP-in-IP 
> tunneling, etc. I would personally object to the idea of trying to 
> separate IP and Mobility into separate areas.

I agree with this. There's fairly large section of the INT area work that
relates to support for wireless nodes or support for movements, and
judging from BoFs there's demand for more. But this seems more like
an evolution of the IP layer protocol set than a separable issue.

(And I'm not saying this because I'd believe the areas should
somehow be cast in stone. The IETF needs to adjust when the
needs change. For instance, I believe its a great idea to create
the new real-time area, because it gives focus for the people
who work on that area, visibility, a clearer interface to and
from the IETF on these matters, etc. And as you suggested,
the number of ADs should reflect the needs. A large area
such as INT might deserve three at certain times, and perhaps its
not unthinkable that a small area needs just one... resources
need to be put where they are most needed. This may be
similar to David's point, in fact.)

--Jari

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:04:56 +0200

> above and below it, and the other one on issues "above" that?

Many times. The Standard Next Message is that:

- the people who have clues in both areas are very valuable to the 
organization, because it's exactly them who provide the "cross-area review" 
that we're so proud of
- if we split it, these people will either go to 6 meetings a year or stop 
coming to one set

That said, I've argued at times that we should try some time to have at 
least one meeting "split" - where different groups of groups meet in 
different places. However, experimentation like this is significantly in 
conflict with the ideal of planning meetings 2 years ahead.

                  Harald

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:08:16 -0400

Pekka> how important is it that documents get reviewed by *all*
    Pekka> current areas?  There are certainly some "cross-layer"
    Pekka> areas, such as SEC and OPS, that should worry about all
    Pekka> layers, but aren't the primary purpose of layering to make
    Pekka> sure that people working on the other end the stack can
    Pekka> feel safe to _mostly_ ignore details at the other end;
    Pekka> e.g., that apps people don't need to worry about the
    Pekka> details of the routing?

The current structure does not require document be reviewed by all
areas.  I can (and sometmies do) record a no objection vote because I
believe that adequate review has taken place without me reading a
document.

--Sam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:59:01 +0200

> believe that adequate review has taken place without me reading a

That's correct. IESG ballot procedure does require 2/3 of the ADs to
record either a YES or a NO OBJECTION for a standards track or BCP
document. According to
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/voting-procedures.txt :

   - "No Objection" means "I would not object if this document went forward".

	examples where No Objection might be used include:
	  - I read it & have no problem with it
	  - I read the protocol action & trust the AD so have no problem
	  - I listened to the discussion and have no problem

	This may be interpreted as "I have no clue or have no cycles",
	in that you exercise the ability to move a document forward on the
	basis of trust towards the other ADs

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:26:07 +0200

So, I am hearing here two conflicting messages:

1. We can't consider a "horizontal" split, since we need
    cross-fertilisation and cross-area review.

2. We aren't doing (that much) cross-area review, or at
    least don't require it.

Hence, I think my question still stands:  Might the benefits be  
greater than the costs?  Might we get (almost) as much cross- 
fertilisation anyway?

If we need to plan meetings ahead for two years, why can't we  
schedule once a two weeks meeting two years ahead, for an  
experiment?  Then we would have plenty of time, i.e. another two  
years, to consider whether that experiment was useful at all.  And if  
two weeks is too much, maybe have a 1.5 weeks meeting (Sunday -  
Tuesday) to start with?  Of course, the point would be not to spread  
out all areas throughout the time but concentrate "horizontal" areas  
towards one of the ends and try to distribute the WGs in the  
"vertical" areas accordingly.

Taking on purpose a simplistic view, to greatest drawback seems to be  
that some valuable people working on different areas would need to  
stay at IETF meetings for about 6 weeks instead of 3 weeks.  (For the  
experiment 4 vs. 3 weeks).

I'm suspecting that a large impediment here is fear, i.e., what if we  
split and those other people in the other IETF screw up things  
there?  If so, experimenting might help to overcome that.

--Pekka

On Sep 22, 2005, at 14:04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> organization, because it's exactly them who provide the "cross-area  
> review" that we're so proud of
> - if we split it, these people will either go to 6 meetings a year  
> or stop coming to one set
>
> That said, I've argued at times that we should try some time to  
> have at least one meeting "split" - where different groups of  
> groups meet in different places. However, experimentation like this  
> is significantly in conflict with the ideal of planning meetings 2  
> years ahead.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:55:55 +0200

> 2. We aren't doing (that much) cross-area review, or at

I disagree with message 2. The message as far as I'm concerned is
that we are not doing enough cross-area review and we aren't doing it
early enough. Frankly I am shocked by how many cross-area problems
show up in documents that reach IETF Last Call or even IESG review.
I see this regularly in the Gen-ART reviews, which you can see too at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html

So we aren't getting *enough* cross-fertilisation today, and we're
getting it too late in the process. That doesn't conflict at all
with message 1.

> 
> Hence, I think my question still stands:  Might the benefits be  greater 
> than the costs?  Might we get (almost) as much cross- fertilisation anyway?
> 
> If we need to plan meetings ahead for two years, why can't we  schedule 
> once a two weeks meeting two years ahead, for an  experiment?  Then we 
> would have plenty of time, i.e. another two  years, to consider whether 
> that experiment was useful at all.  And if  two weeks is too much, maybe 
> have a 1.5 weeks meeting (Sunday -  Tuesday) to start with?  Of course, 
> the point would be not to spread  out all areas throughout the time but 
> concentrate "horizontal" areas  towards one of the ends and try to 
> distribute the WGs in the  "vertical" areas accordingly.
> 
> that some valuable people working on different areas would need to  stay 
> at IETF meetings for about 6 weeks instead of 3 weeks.  (For the  

The other drawback is that people who have a narrow focus and only stay
for part of the total time would have even less cross-area exposure,
either in the corridors or by dropping into sessions out of curiosity.

> split and those other people in the other IETF screw up things  there?  
> If so, experimenting might help to overcome that.

There is a lot of overhead in proactive liaison. We know that from
an existing experiment known as ITU-T SG13.

I think Harald's idea (which could be described as "grouped interim
meetings") is a very interesting one and would actually be a fairly
low cost experiment - if a group of WG chairs got together, they
could set such a thing up as long as the ADs involved agree.

     Brian

>> - if we split it, these people will either go to 6 meetings a year  or 
>> stop coming to one set
>>
>> That said, I've argued at times that we should try some time to  have 
>> at least one meeting "split" - where different groups of  groups meet 
>> in different places. However, experimentation like this  is 
>> significantly in conflict with the ideal of planning meetings 2  years 
>> ahead.
> 
> 
>