There are a few aspect that could use some clarification: * What's the scope of DISPATCH in this new world? * Does WITAREA (?) now pertain to both the Web and the Transport-related work, replacing ARTAREA for the ART groups that have moved? * Does TSVWG remain focused on transport, or will it now also include Web-related work? * As of 119, who will the ADs be for each area? Cheers, > On 23 Sep 2023, at 2:30 am, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Two weeks ago, the IESG proposed [1] a merger of parts of the TSV and ART areas into a new area, and invited community comment. > > After consideration of that feedback, the IESG has decided to proceed with the reorganization with a few tweaks, effective before IETF 119, and will shortly transmit additional requests to the NomCom. > > Briefly, the purposes of this initiative are to (1) eliminate one position where recruiting is difficult, (2) maintain at least two ADs for each area except GEN, and (3) avoid increasing the size of the IESG. > > == Summary of the Plan == > > The new area will be named “Web and Internet Transport” (WIT). It will consist of AVTCORE, CDNI, CCWG, CORE, HTTPAPI, HTTPBIS, MASQUE, MOQ, NFSV4, QUIC, RTCWEB, TAPS, TCPM, TSVAREA (to be renamed), TSVWG (to be renamed), and WEBTRANS. > > The transport area (TSV) will cease to exist. ALTO and IPPM will move to OPS. DTN will move to INT. SCIM and TIGRESS will move to SEC [2]. All other working groups will remain in their current area, and ART will continue to have two ADs. > > Future NomComs will be asked to ensure that at least one WIT AD has expertise in HTTP and related topics, while at least one AD has expertise in traditional transport-layer topics. Obviously, a candidate may have expertise in both, and the precise relationship between the two ADs will be resolved by each pair. Two distinct skill sets are a model successfully used in the Ops and Management area. > > The Transport Area Review Team (TSVART) would not change its purpose, scope, or operations, but will be renamed, given that there is no more transport area. One WIT AD would have primary responsibility for managing this team. The HTTP Directorate would also remain as-is and would be overseen by the other WIT AD. There are no changes to the ARTART at this time. > > == Next steps == > > In response to feedback, the IESG is deferring the decision of which ART AD moves to WIT until the new IESG convenes at IETF 119, although Francesca Palombini remains willing to move. As a result, the ART AD job descriptions are not changing at this time. > > However, the IESG will revise its request to the NomCom to not fill the TSV AD position currently occupied by Martin Duke. Furthermore, one of the two open ART positions will change from a two-year to a one-year term to stagger the positions going forward. > > == Summary of feedback == > > This section attempts to categorize the feedback received in response to [1], with brief responses where appropriate. > > = High-order bits = > > Web and Transport are a bad fit: Touch, Nottingham > Web and Transport are a good fit: Pauly, Pardue, Baryun, Huitema > > IESG: After considering some alternatives, we came to the conclusion that Web and Transport were a good fit for the reasons the supporters describe. > > AD Partnering is not important: Nottingham > AD Partnering is important: Kuhlewind, Baryun > > IESG: The current ADs believe having a partner is important. It is certainly possible to have ad hoc partnerships, but we believe habitual relationships decrease the cognitive load of the job. Furthermore, the Ops/Management area is an example of this arrangement working. > > This is good overall: Pauly, Blanchet, Swett, Schinazi, Aboba, Black, Zhou, Bishop, Schwartz > > IESG: Thanks for the feedback! > > This is fine, but we should think much bigger: S. Farrell, Richardson, Carpenter > > IESG: This does not preclude further work on fundamental changes to the IESG, though that work will take longer. Moreover, it is reasonable to try incremental changes to solve problems before trying sweeping ones. > > This will waste time and move in the wrong direction: Moore > > IESG: We do not believe this is actionable except as a comment opposing this reorganization. > > Integrate with IEEE 802.11 better: Taht > Transfer groups to the W3C: Wood > Remove congestion control as a core competency: Eckert > > IESG: We are not considering changes to our relationship with external SDOs at this time. Furthermore, we believe TCP, QUIC, HTTP, and other protocols in this area are core competencies of the IETF. > > This change is too disruptive right now, and we should think much bigger: Klensin, and a private responder > It’s too late to start in the 2023-24 cycle: Salz, Hardie > > IESG: While this is a reasonable concern, we have been in contact with the active NomCom chair, with full knowledge of the IETF Chair opening, and believe our course of action is feasible. Indeed, IETF chair vacancies are common occurrences. > > Look at bluesheets to do area groupings: Gondwana > > IESG: This would be an interesting exercise, but we will not block on someone volunteering to do it. Attendance overlaps are only one consideration for area assignments. > > = Low order bits = > > Don’t have a strict line between transport and web: Pauly > > IESG: The exact relationship between the WIT ADs will be determined by each pair, depending on their skills and preferences. The role of this reorganization is to have clear requests to the NomCom for the collective skill set of the ADs. > > DTN should be in INT: Blanchet > DTN should be in RTG: Touch > > IESG: In our view, the case for each area has similar strength, but INT has more capacity to take another WG. > > Form a OAM/Fault Management/Performance WG: Mirsky > > IESG: Chartering new WGs is out of scope for this reorganization, but you are always welcome to suggest a BOF through the usual process. > > There should be a report at IETF 120: Baryun > WGs must consent to being moved: Baryun > > IESG: RFC2026 leaves the organization of the details of the standards work in the IETF to the IESG, and that includes assigning WGs to areas. This IESG strongly encourages the future IESG to report at IETF 120. > > Pick the name carefully: Scharf > > IESG: We reconsidered the proposals and settled on WIT instead. > > Don’t move an ART AD until after the new IESG is seated: Schwartz > > IESG: In response to this suggestion, we will defer this decision (see above). Francesca remains willing to move if her fellow ART ADs agree. > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iydZ0V3emgjhxVitq_2CGEMo5f8/ > > [2] Roman Danyliw is already Responsible AD for these working groups. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
