Re: Proposal for Consolidating Parts of the ART & TSV Areas

[Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Martin, and IESG,

There is no big problem in changing ietf_Areas or ietf_ADs for the IESG_processes, but is may be a big problem in changing for WG chairs and WG participants, because if the change is good for your decisions it most probable that it will not be good for others (with lower/deeper ietf_process work_position) affected by such change. Comments below,

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 5:50 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The IESG proposes to reorganize the areas by merging the web-related working groups in ART with most of the transport area to create a new area called either “Web and Application Transport” (WAT) or “Transport and Web Applications” (TWA), effective at IETF 119. The IESG invites community comment on this change.

The merging is ok IMHO, however should have clear signs of progress and monitoring/testing performance per Area_WGs (the test results should be announced within 3months or at IETF 120). The IESG_Plan MUST include that IETF_120_meeting should evaluate/report the change/transition performance per affected WGs within IESG submitted_report.

The Transport area (TSV) is the smallest area in terms of working groups. More importantly, it has been extremely difficult to find candidates for the two Transport AD positions for many years. Although the Transport Area could be managed by one AD, the IESG strongly feels that having a partner is very important for vacation coverage, managing working groups, handling conflicts of interest, and so on.

Agree

 

Meanwhile, the Applications and Real Time (ART) area has been growing. The IESG has already requested a third AD position for ART to be seated by the NomCom in 2024. One of these three ART ADs would move to the new area, together with one AD from TSV. Concurrently eliminating a position prevents growth in the overall size of the IESG.

Similar to the OPS area, this new area would have two centers of gravity (transport layer and web applications), so that one AD would have transport expertise and the other would have HTTP expertise. Thematically, this new area would have cohesion around traditional Transport subjects and ART protocols that are often used as transports (especially HTTP). These groups tend to have significant attendance overlaps.

Agree

 

Affected Working Groups

The following working groups would move outside both ART and the new area:

• ALTO to OPS

• DTN to INT

• IPPM to OPS

• SCIM to SEC

• TIGRESS to SEC

This change is not suitable until those WGs agree to change outside their ietf_Area. The WG charter was for a particular ietf_Area, so a new discussion needs to be done per ietf_WG to solve this or recharter. There are many ietf_participants that don't follow the ietf_mail_list, which they only follow their ietf_WG_list. Therefore, those WGs need to agree on that change proposed by/for IESG.

The new area would consist of the following working groups:

• AVTCORE

• CDNI

• CCWG

• CORE

• HTTPAPI

• HTTPBIS

• MASQUE

• MOQ

• NFSV4

• QUIC

• RTCWEB

• TAPS

• TCPM

• TSVAREA (to be renamed in accordance with the new area and an updated description/purpose)

• TSVWG (this may require a minor recharter, but would retain the same competencies)

• WEBTRANS

Agree,  because I don't think those WGs will mind the new name of their Area.

 

All other ART working groups would remain in place.

meaning would remain in the ART Area.

The Transport Area Review Team (TSVART) would not change its purpose, scope, or operations. The Transport-focused AD would have primary responsibility for managing this team. The HTTP Directorate would also remain as-is and would be overseen by the HTTP-oriented AD of the new area. Details about ARTART are TBD.

ok

 

Transition Plan

The IESG would request that NomCom not fill the open TSV AD position currently occupied by Martin Duke. Francesca Palombini and Zahed Sarker would be the initial ADs for the new area.

I did not understand this plan item, but IMO any open AD position should be filled with a backup plan if AD is not available. The new Area needs three ADs, which I agree.

AB>misunderstanding>  in the transition plan if you started merging Area TSV with Web while creating a new area, that means deleting TSV area, so we cannot say there is any position for TSV as we already have no TSV.

 

The IESG would also request that one of the two ART openings be filled for only a one-year term, so as to stagger future ART AD terms.

Agree that ART will need two ADs at all times.

The new area’s AD terms would initially also end at the same time. In the 2024-2025 NomCom cycle, the IESG would request that the NomCom fill two slots, one with transport expertise and one with HTTP expertise, either of which could be a one-year term (but not both).

All ADs need to have expertise in their ietf_area, if you create a new ietf_area then the AD MUST be the expert in the new Area otherwise no need for the proposal if no availability of expert directions/decisions. I agree with discussions on the ietf_list that some ADs may have not enough expert in all WGs_Area, but they MUST be interested/capable in taking initiative/responsibility to direct all those WGs in the right direction.

 

Next Steps

Please submit any comments on this plan, including the name/acronym to iesg@xxxxxxxx no later than 20 Sep 2023 (anywhere on Earth).

Please contact all affected WGs community/mail_list so that they check their charter and discuss this proposal of changing their ietf_area.

Best Regards

AB