Tom, We (RTGWG) traditionally have been introducing new technologies that are relevant for routing as well as bringing up “routing cutting edge” discussions. Some of these discussions resulted in new work/wg’s, routing in DC is a great example (RIFT and LSVR), some were moved to different areas. Cheers, Jeff > On Aug 25, 2022, at 08:40, tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 25/08/2022 14:00, Robert Sparks wrote: >> 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. > > I remember the creation of the Dispatch WG and the reasons that led to it along with the reorganisation of areas and the brief(!) life of Appsawg. I probably assumed that Dispatch was not just for one area but would also serve for others when needed until I saw a recent reference to WG xxx being the dispatch for Area zzz which led me to look for other dispatch WG and to find secdispatch but not the others, although Donald's list makes perfect sense, starting from the basis that there is a dispatch WG for each area. > > In practice, I do not see that happening much in routing and Ops where I see to-ing and fro-ing as to which WG might be the best home; thus TLS1.3 is being added to a number of protocols and it is not clear to me where such work fits; it gets sorted, courtesy of cooperation between WG Chairs and ADs. > > I continue to be surprised as to what I am ignorant of after 25 years of participation in the IETF so I was also wondering what else has passed me by. > > Tom Petch > > >>> 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 >>> >
