To Brian's "quite new": Dispatch was chartered in 2009 - over 13
years ago.
To "why" : See RFC5727 and its updates, particularly RFC7957.
To Mary's point about DISPATCH vs ARTAREA: Right _now_ traffic in both groups is small enough that at meeting time, sharing a slot is a reasonable optimization. That is not guaranteed to remain true. It is not true right now for Security (SAAG vs SECDISPATCH) for instance.
Pendulums swing, often driven by the need to scale.
On 8/24/22 5:52 PM, Mary B wrote:
The DISPATCH WG in the ART area originated in the RAI area and I think it was the original dispatch type WG. It was a reaction to the plethora of diverse work items that were being shuffled through the SIPPING WG (which published a total of 54 RFCs before it was closed). We sometimes referred to the WG sessions as the gong show as we would only have time for 5 minutes for some topics. The DISPATCH WG was quite effective in getting smaller WGs organized to solve specific problems and making sure there was enough people willing to do the work. SIPPING really suffered from having just a few people interested in some items and there were things published for which there are no implementations. The wiki is no longer maintained, but if you go back to an earlier version you can see the groups that were chartered and were able to successfully complete deliverables: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dispatch/wiki/WikiStart?version=144
There never was a RAI area WG and as you note, dispatch type WGs serve a very similar role. I would posit that there is really no strong impetus at this juncture to really have the notion of a DISPATCH WG separate from ART Area - both have been scheduled in the same slot since RAI merged with APPs and the distinction as to where a topic fits isn't always clear. And, of course, the volume of new work related to SIP and real time protocols has dramatically decreased since the DISPATCH WG was originally chartered.
Regards,Mary.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24-Aug-22 20:46, tom petch wrote:
>
> On 22/08/2022 18:03, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> Area Dispatch WG
>> ------------------
>> ART DISPATCH
>> GEN GENDISPATCH
>> INT INTAREA
>> OPS OPSAWG
>> RTG RTGWG
>> SEC SECDISPATCH
>> TSV TSVWG
>>
>> In some cases it is a "pure" dispatch WG that never processes documents
>> itself. In other cases, it handles documents in the area that it does not
>> dispatch in some other way.
>
> Donald
>
> Thank you for the prompt and comprehensive response. Clearly it is
> easier to know than I imagined but how could I have found that out? As
> you may infer, I did search the datatracker, IESG wiki and such like to
> no avail. I see that the charters for e.g. intarea and rtgwg do include
> mention of this function albeit not using the word 'dispatch'.
The very notion of a separate forum for 'dispatch' discussions is quite new,
whereas 'area' WGs have existed for many years and are (IMHO) the natural
forum for such discussions. I don't know why ART and SEC areas decided to set
up separate groups (that doesn't imply that I have any objection, those
are simply areas that I don't track). I do know why the GEN area did so -
there was no GENAREA WG at all, so there was a real gap.
(When I was GEN Area Director, I assumed that ietf@xxxxxxxx was the forum
for general IETF discussions.)
Brian
