|
I have seen the functioning of SGs at the IEEE and agree that they can be useful, but I'm not sure about how it is being "translated" into the IETF> It occurs to me that we don't need to invent a new process here. The IRTF houses different types of "research" groups: some are meant to be long-lived, some are meant to meet during IETF, some never meet, etc. There also are some RGs that have operated in a manner similar to the study groups being proposed: NSRG (name spaces research group), for example. And some that have been started as an alternative to petitions to form a WG, and which would seriously benefit from having a tighter charter with specific milestones and expectations (e.g., p2prg RG). RGs are created with all sorts of different goals in mind. All that the IESG needs here, I think, is to start an RG to probe further into a given issue, and keep it on a short leash along the lines stipulated for the SG: e.g., milestones, meetings during IETF, explicit IESG liaison, etc. But the point is that these conditions need not be the same for each such RG/SG. I also think this is something useful the IRTF could do, as most often than not, it actually doesn't do any research. The IESG wins, the IRTF wins, the IETF wins. -gabriel > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:45:44 +0200 > From: dromasca@xxxxxxxxx > To: lear@xxxxxxxxx; ekr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > CC: jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02 > > The way I see it the problem that this proposal tries to solve is about > helping the IESG and the community to make a better decision when the > forming of the working group us discussed. It is not about bringing more > work to the IETF, it is about making sure to a better extent that the > right work is being brought into the IETF. In the absence of such a > process what we see in many cases is the formation of ad-hoc groups, > which is not necessarily bad - but why not charter them with a set of > clear questions which may help the IESG and the whole community reach a > more educated decision? > > Regarding terminology, the term 'study group' is used in this proposal > in a way similar to how the IEEE is using it. > > Dan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:30 PM > > To: Eric Rescorla > > Cc: Jari Arkko; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02 > > > > If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be to > > provide ADs some indication of level of interest and ability > > to succeed. I see no reason why we need to formalize this > > within the IETF. Furthemore, the terminology is problematic. > > We are overlapping a term that is commonly used by the ITU > > the way working group is used by the IETF. > > Let's not make the process any more confusing than it already is. > > Finally, milestones for such "study groups" seem to me inappropriate. > > It may be that a topic is uninteresting for quite a while and > > then picks up. ANY way to demonstrate that interest and > > ability to succeed should be sufficient, regardless of how > > much time has passed. > > > > Eliot > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today! |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf