Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-03.txt

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

 



Hi,

The complete text of the strawman -03 document is available here:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IAB/draft-aboba-sg-experiemnt-03.txt

Easily corrected typo, but just for ease of clicking, the correct URL is

http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IAB/draft-aboba-sg-experiment-03.txt

Now, for something completely different...

Since this is an experiment - please don't hold up the experiment while you try to legalese-craft all the corner cases, but you might include a "things to clarify if the experiment succeeds" list... which might include this question...

From way down at the bottom of the 03 Introduction (which is really long,
but):

  This document describes an RFC 3933 [RFC3933] experiment in the
  Working Group formation process, known as the Study Group.  Study
  Groups MAY be formed by the IESG when there is evidence of clear
  interest in a topic on the part of IETF participants and end-users,
  and relevance to the Internet community has been demonstrated, but
  other RFC 2418 [RFC2418] criteria relating to Working Group formation
  (including creation of a satisfactory Charter) have not yet been met
  as the result of a first or second Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) session.

So far, so good... I'm not confused until the next paragraph:

  Study Group milestones are focused on completion of prerequisites for
  Working Group formation, and as a result they are expected to
  conclude within a short time frame, with limited opportunities for
  milestone extension.  This Study Group experiment does not alter the
  Working Group formation guidelines described in RFC 2418 [RFC2418]
  Section 2.1, the processes relating to BoFs [BOF]  or the Internet
  Standards Process described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].

Is everyone but me totally clear on how BOFs interact with SGs and WGs?

The way I'm reading this, the mainline path through this procedure is that some community of interest requests a BOF, with a request that's plausible enough for an AD to go for it, and then the IESG suggests a SG after the BOF.

If the SG "succeeds", is there any opportunity to hold a second BOF (which seems reasonable, as a WG-forming BOF that would have more IETF-wide visibility), or does the SG have to go straight to WG (which is the way I read version 03)?

And, for extra credit, if the answer is "yes", what if the community held two BOFs before the SG formed (which would be the 2418 limit)? The answer based on "does not alter the process" seems to be "no" - is that what we want?

And a couple of nits...

Nit: there are places in this draft that say "charter", but since both SGs and WGs have charters, it would be great if these occurences were qualified as "SG charter" or "WG charter".

Nit: [BOF] is great advice (I've reviewed it at least once for Thomas), but it's not "the processes relating to BOFs [BOF]". The last time I saw [BOF], it was intended to be informational - the process is still normatively described in 2418.

Thanks,

Spencer


_______________________________________________

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]