Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-aboba-sg-experiment (Experiment in Study Group Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) to Experimental RFC

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:53:37 -0400

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.)

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

- 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?)

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

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. 

Keith
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'Experiment in Study Group Formation within the Internet Engineering 
>    Task Force (IETF) '
>    <draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt> as an Experimental RFC
>
> 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 2007-10-08. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=16256&rfc_flag=0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:48:22 +0300

Keith,

> should be at best advisory information for ADs, the community, and any

I had actually not thought of your second option. But I think that
option is possible, in a similar way that we can write a WG's
charter to say that a first step is to establish a design team.

> participation, decisions made on the list, etc.), also apply to SG

The same rules apply to SGs.

> preempt creation of WGs due to a lack of resources?)

See above, they could meet.

In general, we try to create the WGs and SGs that
make sense, rather than track any specific resource. But the
following resources do get attention:

- Is the same group of author/chair/key contributor people
  trying to do too much at the same time? If yes, their
  proposals may need to be serialized.

- Do we have meeting space? As far as I know, the current IESG
  has never declined a WG or a BOF based on this. But FWIW, we
  have come really close in Prague; scheduling for INT is
  a nightmare. We are merging/terminating/reorganizing
  some WGs to make space for new ones.

Finally, I would definitely give priority for a WG if I had
to choose between a WG and a SG.

> (this is an openness question)

Presumably they could have an interim meeting. Note that
the current practice is that BOF and pre-BOF efforts do
sometimes arrange meetings outside the IETF to try
and get organized, prepare their material, etc. No rules
apply to pre-BOF efforts, but SGs would follow the same
rules as WGs do.

> things in a SG's charter and perhaps even to let them vary from one SG

Yes, the intent is to let the group/IESG write the SG charter
in different ways, depending on what is appropriate for the
case in question.

By the way, I'm sponsoring this document but I also intend
to create an SG or two, assuming I can find a BOF effort that
is reasonable enough that they deserve one but have not
progressed far enough so that they should not simply be
given a WG.

Jari

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:01:38 -0400

okay, just to be clear - I'm not sure it should be assumed that SGs
follow the same rules as for WGs - especially if SGs can be closed or
invitation only like design teams can. 

I like openness, but I also recognize that the IETF culture tends to
interpret openness broadly enough to mean that anyone can bring up any
topic at any time, whether or not that topic is related to the group's
purpose, whether or not that person knows what he is talking about, 
whether or not that topic has already been discussed and a conclusion
reached, and whether or not there is any new information on that topic. 
And this is a big part of our problem.  So I think it might be a mistake
to incorporate too many assumptions about IETF WGs into SGs.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:31:36 +0300

Keith,

> to incorporate too many assumptions about IETF WGs into SGs.
Fair enough. Like I said, this option did not occur
to me, but I would also be fine if we employed it.
What do other people think?

Jari

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:03:33 -0400

I think we should explicitly say that SGs follow WG rules.

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:38:51 -0700

I would suggest that if a study goup is going to be effective it might well want to meet somewhere other than an IETF plenary.
 
If you are going to study phishing then talk to bankers, lawyers and law enforcement. If you are going to study deployment of IPv6 talk to ISPs and to equipment manufacturers who are not doing what you want.

________________________________

From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 10/09/2007 5:53 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-aboba-sg-experiment (Experiment in Study Group Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) to Experimental RFC

Keith