|
Yes, but RGs are not initiated by the IESG but by
the IRTF and they are focused on research oriented charters. Many of the issues
faced by folks that discuss the possible formation of new WGs are engineering
rather than research issues.
Dan
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!
|