Re: Reforming the BOF Process (was Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



One of the things I have been doing and will continue to be doing is to bring work to the IETF that may be needed by other standards organizations and in some cases is needed by other organizations. I have done this or tried to do this in the AD sponsored route as an author and/or document shepherd as well as through the BoF process. I have had some successes and some failures. Here is a meta-issue from that experience.

If a piece of work is proposed early, it may be dismissed in the category of "who needs this?" It is also difficult for proponents to communicate constraints specific to other organizations. Official communication channels are not possible since there may not be a work item.

If it is brought just in time (the interest may be communicated via an official LS), the time constraints involved are hard on everyone.

The consequence in either case is that people choose bad (in clear violation of an IETF BCP or RFC) alternatives in the other organizations with the simple reason of nothing better is available (from the IETF).

The Study Group concept that Bernard proposes (with Dan's qualifications; I am sure we will IETFy it before it is all said and done) might be helpful in addressing the first category, i.e., bringing work early. As John notes it may introduce additional delay and that concerns me. Perhaps we should have the same evaluation process as now and the result of the process, if the proponents are also up for it could be a Study Group instead of "go away."

thanks,
Lakshminath

On 6/15/2007 3:53 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Bernard,

I think your proposal is worth thinking about. The current BOF process
is very on/off in its nature. One of the problems that it is causing is that
when work is not far enough, a BOF or WG cannot be established. This
in turns leave the perception that the IETF is completely ignoring the
topic. In reality, a denied WG/BOF might mean anything ranging from
"go away with your stupid idea" to "this is very important and interesting,
but please do <X> first so that the WG can be chartered or BOF held".
We try to give the right perception, of course, but sometimes its hard to
convince people who can only observe the existence/non-existence
of an official activity.

Jari

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) kirjoitti:
*/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/* *//*
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *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)

    The recent discussion on the IFARE BOF has raised more fundamental
    issues
    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


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]