Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-aboba-sg-experiment (Experiment in Study Group Formation wi

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:05:46 -0700

Keith Moore said:

"I have a few questions about this proposal:

- to what extent is a SG allowed to frame the problem to be solved in a
way that would constrain a later WG if one were chartered?  it's clear
that they're not supposed to develop protocol specs, but what about
requirements?  goals?  models of interaction between communicating
parties?  terminology?

(I am of two minds about this.  one is that the work that an SG does
might well be valuable input into a WG's charter and/or design effort,
and asking a WG to reinvent a perfectly good wheel developed by an SG
would be unreasonable.   another is that SGs might be able to function
better and produce results more quickly if they are appointed committees
rather than open discussions, but in such a case their efforts should
not be binding on IETF WGs in any way.  my instinct says that SG output
should be at best advisory information for ADs, the community, and any
future WGs.)

[BA] I think that depends on what additional work items are included in the 
SG charter beyond the minimal ones (WG charter proposal + formation 
criteria) and what their status is.   In general, I'd suggest that the SG 
charter typically be more minimalist, due to the short time frame.  The 
proposed WG charter and formation criteria would go through SG consensus and 
IETF/I* review, and presumbably after that was completed and approved would 
result in WG formation with WG milestones and charter.

The question is what happens with literature review, problem statement or 
requirements document.  If the intent is for them not to be binding, they 
can be Informational or labeled as such in the document, with the intent 
specified in the SG milestones.  It would seem a bit odd if a SG were 
chartered to produce a Standards Track document (or even a BCP), but the 
document currently doesn't prohibit that.  Do you think that it should?  Do 
you have any text to suggest?

- to what extent do the rules that apply to WG operation (open
participation, decisions made on the list, etc.), also apply to SG
operation?

[BA] From a procedural point of view, SGs are WGs, so all those rules apply.

- are SGs allowed to request meeting space at IETF plenary meetings?
(this is a resource utilization question - does IESG need to treat SGs
more-or-less as WGs for the purpose of resource allocation?  could SGs
preempt creation of WGs due to a lack of resources?)

[BA] SGs are WGs so yes, they can request meeting space, and they are 
treated as WGs from an infrastructure and process point of view.

- are SGs allowed to have face to face meetings independently of IETF?
(this is an openness question)

[BA] The same rules would apply to SGs as to WGs (e.g. required notice for 
interims, openness, etc.)

it might be possible to finesse some of these questions by giving
flexibility to IESG during the experimental period to specify these
things in a SG's charter and perhaps even to let them vary from one SG
to another. "

[BA] The IESG has the same flexibility/influence on SGs charters as on WGs.  
Since this is an experiment, we were looking to avoid creating extra work 
for the Secretariat.  Therefore the idea that SGs and WGs are treated the 
same for administrative/infrastructure purposes.

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