Bernard,
Speaking as a participant in both the IETF and IEEE
802, there are many things that I like in the CFI / Study Group process of IEEE.
Your proposal goes in the direction of solving one of the
problems I perceive in the IETF processes which is the lack of
repeatability and predictability (again speaking as a participant). I like
it. Yet, there are some differences:
-
The five criteria in the IEEE would not apply as is. I am not sure that 'broad
market potential' should be there at all, or should be as strong a factor as it
is in the IEEE. Same with economic feasibility, which in the IEEE often refers
to the costs of hardware based implementations
-
'Measuring interest' works differently in the IETF than in the IEEE which is
very much physical participation based, and where participants and company
votes are dully counted and registered in CFI meetings as proof of
interest.
Dan
The recent discussion on the IFARE BOF has raised more fundamental issues
From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:52 PM
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
about the IETF BOF process. Rather than letting discussion continue on the
SAAG list, it would seem better for this discussion to occur on the IETF list.
> Speaking as a former AD, it can be a very tough call to say yes/no to
> a BOF. Unfortunately, there is often interest, but interest is most
> definitely not enough. There needs to be more than interest.
It should be understood that this is a feature of the IETF process that is
not necessarily held in common with other SDOs.
For example, within IEEE 802 the initial meeting is termed a "Call
for Interest" because the determination of interest is the major focus;
writing a charter/PAR is not.
Assuming that sufficient interest exists, a study group is formed, whose
sole purpose is to write a Project Authorization Request (PAR)
(equivalent of a charter), and demonstrate that the proposed work
satisfies the "5 criteria":
1. Broad Market Potential
a. Broad sets of applicability.
b. Multiple vendors and numerous users.
c. Balanced costs
2. Compatibility with existing standards.
3. Distinct Identity.
4. Technical feasibility
a. Demonstrated system feasibility
b. Proven technology, reasonable testing
c. Confidence in reliability
5. Economic Feasibility
> There needs to be a reasonable chance of a positive, forward-moving
> outcome.
I believe that this ascribes more predictive value to the BOF process than
is warranted by experience. Quite a few deployed technologies have
originated from BOFs that the IESG judged to not have a likely "forward-moving
outcome", while many unproductive working groups arose from successful
BOFs. The reality is that BOFs do not much have predictive value, if only
because the BOF process does not much resemble the WG process, so that
the success dynamics cannot easily be ascertained as a result.
> Yes, I* opinions are afforded special status. They are our chosen
> leadership, and with leadership comes responsibility. Responsibility
> to be sure that if the work goes forward, it is well scoped, has a
> reasonable likelihood of success, etc. And please remember, the IETF
> is a meritocracy. So please don't raise the "I* has special status"
> issue as if it were some kind of unfair or biased way of doing things.
Again, the IESG role in the BOF process represents a choice on the part
of the IETF. It is possible to envisage other approaches that could yield
outcomes as good or better while providing better accountability and
transparency.
For example, by restricting the function of an initial BOF to a determination of
interest and a decision to form/not form a study group, the opportunities
for unfairness and bias can be reduced. Once the study group
had produced a charter and documentation of the formation criteria, the review
of these documents could proceed with more information than is typically
available as the result of a (potentially delayed) 2nd BOF. Also, the
review could utilize existing procedures for ensuring transparency and
accountability, such as an open review process and documentation of
DISCUSS comments.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf