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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday,
> October 08, 2007 3:30 PM> > To: Eric Rescorla> > Cc: Jari Arkko;
> [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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> [email protected]> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
