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

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:22:50 -0700 (PDT)

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

I would agree.  There are several reasons why this is probably the best 
way to go.  Aside from the openness issues, the amount of extra work 
created for the IESG/Secretariat to have a different set of rules would be 
very substantial.  A SG group chair has all the same obligations to keep 
things on track as a WG chair does -- and if they can't, then that is 
probably a good sign that they wouldn't be a very good WG chair.  A SG can 
also have a design team, much as a WG can. 

> - 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 think that depends on what items are chartered, and what their status 
is.  It is probably not a good idea to have charter a SG to develop a 
Standards Track document (or maybe even a BCP), but the document currently 
doesn't prohibit that (it just prohibits milestones relating to protocol 
specifications).  Do we need some additional language on that?

> - 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?)

Yes, they're allowed to request meeting space, same as WGs.  In terms of 
impact on meeting slots (which has been tight lately), the question is 
whether a given SG would consume a slot by meeting that would not 
otherwise be consumed.  If the SG is going well, it's more likely 
that either an additional BOF or a WG slot would have been 
allocated anyway.  If it's going poorly and dragging out, then yes, it 
might consume additional slots.  I think this speaks to the desirability 
of chartering SGs for the minimal period of time.  An alternative to "six 
to twelve months" might be "six months", or perhaps "one or two IETF 
meetings." 

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