Keith, > I have a few questions about this proposal: > > - to what extent is a SG allowed to frame the problem to be solved in a > way that would constrain a later WG if one were chartered? it's clear > that they're not supposed to develop protocol specs, but what about > requirements? goals? models of interaction between communicating > parties? terminology? > > (I am of two minds about this. one is that the work that an SG does > might well be valuable input into a WG's charter and/or design effort, > and asking a WG to reinvent a perfectly good wheel developed by an SG > would be unreasonable. another is that SGs might be able to function > better and produce results more quickly if they are appointed committees > rather than open discussions, but in such a case their efforts should > not be binding on IETF WGs in any way. my instinct says that SG output > should be at best advisory information for ADs, the community, and any > future WGs.) > I had actually not thought of your second option. But I think that option is possible, in a similar way that we can write a WG's charter to say that a first step is to establish a design team. > - to what extent do the rules that apply to WG operation (open > participation, decisions made on the list, etc.), also apply to SG > operation? > The same rules apply to SGs. > - are SGs allowed to request meeting space at IETF plenary meetings? > (this is a resource utilization question - does IESG need to treat SGs > more-or-less as WGs for the purpose of resource allocation? could SGs > preempt creation of WGs due to a lack of resources?) > See above, they could meet. In general, we try to create the WGs and SGs that make sense, rather than track any specific resource. But the following resources do get attention: - Is the same group of author/chair/key contributor people trying to do too much at the same time? If yes, their proposals may need to be serialized. - Do we have meeting space? As far as I know, the current IESG has never declined a WG or a BOF based on this. But FWIW, we have come really close in Prague; scheduling for INT is a nightmare. We are merging/terminating/reorganizing some WGs to make space for new ones. Finally, I would definitely give priority for a WG if I had to choose between a WG and a SG. > - are SGs allowed to have face to face meetings independently of IETF? > (this is an openness question) > Presumably they could have an interim meeting. Note that the current practice is that BOF and pre-BOF efforts do sometimes arrange meetings outside the IETF to try and get organized, prepare their material, etc. No rules apply to pre-BOF efforts, but SGs would follow the same rules as WGs do. > it might be possible to finesse some of these questions by giving > flexibility to IESG during the experimental period to specify these > things in a SG's charter and perhaps even to let them vary from one SG > to another. > Yes, the intent is to let the group/IESG write the SG charter in different ways, depending on what is appropriate for the case in question. By the way, I'm sponsoring this document but I also intend to create an SG or two, assuming I can find a BOF effort that is reasonable enough that they deserve one but have not progressed far enough so that they should not simply be given a WG. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf