Sam Hartman said:
"It's my understanding of the document that SG formation is subject to
ietf-wide review. I'm not sure that the IETF review in RFC 2418 nor
the same IETF review for SG formation is quite the same as an IETF LC,
but I do think the same IETF and IAB involvement is anticipated in the
SG process. The IAB is not involved in proposing SG formation
initially, although they are involved in reviewing whether that is a
good idea before it goes out to the wider IETF community."
That is my understanding as well. To make it more clear, I would propose
mentioning IAB review explicitl in Section 3, which is now proposed to
read as follows:
3. The Experiment
This experiment runs for a period of 18 months from IESG approval of
the experiment. During the period of the experiment, the IESG MAY
approve formation of as many as three Study Groups. The IESG MUST
inform the community in a public statement of any decisions for Study
Group formation approved under this experiment. Such a statement
SHOULD include a description of specific Study Group that was formed.
Given that this is an experiment, the intent is for Study Groups to
be handled identically to Working Groups in terms of IETF process,
tools and infrastructure; no additional burden is to be imposed on
the IETF Secretariat. Other than the abbreviated charter, the
process for formation of a Study Group is identical to that of a
Working Group, including review by the IAB and IESG, announcement of
the potential Study Group, and request for review by the IETF
community. The operating rules of a Study Group (openness, meeting
requirements, etc.) are identical to Working Groups. From the point
of view of IETF infrastructure (tools, membership in the WGCHAIRS
mailing list, process rules, Charter pages, etc.) Study Groups are
treated identically to Working Groups, with the exception that Study
Group names should include "SG" within the name (e.g. "EXAMPLESG"),
so as to clearly differentiate them from Working Groups.
Review of Study Group documents will utilize the same tracking tools
and processes (including PROTO sheparding) as other IETF documents;
this allows feedback to be viewed by Study Group Chairs and
participants, as well as providing additional clarity on next steps.
Formation of a Study Group requires the appointment of a Study Group
Chair, and a well defined set of Working Group formation criteria
(agreement on the Charter, review of the formation criteria, problem
statement or requirements document, etc. )
Eric Rescorla said:
"A related issue is that this puts pressure on ADs to approve
SGs for efforts that they would ordinarily simply refuse WGs
for. I.e., "OK, so you won't give us a WG, how about a
SG". Currently this document simply has it at the IESG's
discretion"
In order to address the potential for SGs dragging on, I have added a
default lifetime (6 months), as well as some guidance on SG formation to
Section 2, which is proposed to read as follows:
"2. Study Group Formation
If at any point during the Working Group formation process, including
after a first or second BoF session, relevance to the Internet
community and interest within the IETF and end-user community has
been demonstrated, but one or more Working Group formation criteria
outlined in RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1 has not yet been met, the
IESG MAY propose that a Study Group be formed.
Since the goal of a Study Group is to put in place the prerequisites
for formation of a Working Group more rapidly than might otherwise be
possible, Study Groups SHOULD initially be chartered for a period of
six months to twelve months, with six months being the default.
While the IESG MAY extend the initial Study Group milestones by an
additional six months, extensions beyond this are NOT RECOMMENDED.
The Charter for a Study Group SHOULD include at least the following
"basic milestones":
o Development of a Working Group Charter.
o Development of a document demonstrating fulfillment of
the Working Group formation criteria described in
RFC 2418 [RFC2418] Section 2.1.
The IESG MAY also include additional milestones within a Study Group
charter (such as development of a problem statement or requirements
document and/or completion of a review of the literature or current
practices), as long as these additional milestones do not compromise
the ability of the Study Group to deliver on the basic milestones in
a timely way. A Study Group charter MUST NOT include milestones
relating to development of standards track documents or protocol
specifications.
Since the Study Group experiment is not intended as a substitute for
the existing Working Group formation process, Study Groups SHOULD be
formed only in situations where the prerequisites for formation of a
WG are likely to be met if the SG successfully completes the basic
milestones."
With respect to success metrics, I would propose to add the following
Section 3.1:
"3.1. Success Metrics
Since one of the goals of this experiment is to enable the more rapid
formation of Working Groups, the success of an individual Study
Group, as well as the experiment, can be measured based on the
progress made toward Working Group formation. Useful metrics
include:
Progress on Basic Milestones
A Study Group that does not make progress on its basic milestones
cannot be judged successful, regardless of its other achievements,
such as progress on a literature review or requirements document.
Progress on the basic milestones is measured by whether they are
completed within the time-frame specified in the initial Study
Group Charter, and whether feedback from the IESG, IAB and IETF
community is positive, leading the IESG to vote to form a Working
Group.
Mailing List Activity
Since one of the goals of the Study Group experiment is to avoid a
potential loss of interest among participants, evidence of
continued engagement on the part of Study Group participants based
on mailing list activity is a potential success metric.
Conversely, a Study Group whose mailing list shows minimal traffic
would probably not be a good candidate for milestone extension."
The complete text of the strawman -03 document is available here:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IAB/draft-aboba-sg-experiemnt-03.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf