On 9/23/14 4:27 AM, 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Bruno:

To complement what Stewart and Jeff already said..


2)      BoF/new WG



“Options for handling new work include:

- Developing a proposal for a BoF.

- Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG”

It seems to me that so far the above work was currently performed in Routing 
Area plenary meetings.

Note that the text you quoted talks about developing a proposal/charter, not 
just discussing the proposals, which is what I think happens in the rtgarea 
meetings.  The development and preparation for those meetings happens somewhere 
else.

One of the reasons to move some of these discussions to rtgwg is to benefit 
from the wide knowledge base in the WG, from more discussion and review..along 
with the structure of being a WG.  After all we all know that the real work in 
the IETF happens in the WGs. ;-)

We are defining a process (that will be posted in the wiki soon for everyone to 
review) to handle this type of work.  One of the items that you will see there 
is the assignment of a shepherd (from the RTG Directorate) to help figure out 
the details of the proposals/charters.  I would expect that the shepherd and 
the authors would do some of the work off-line and then have the WG 
comment/review.  Similar to what happens today, but with the structure of a WG 
to reach consensus, etc.

Do we want to move this to RTGWG? If so
- I’m a bit concerned that such activities are less technically oriented, 
possibly political and involving many discussions and hence could delay the 
technical work in RTGWG.

Even though we don't have any specific new work, we have already asked for 
additional time at the next in-person meeting.  One of the challenges is to 
know in advance what new topics will need to be discussed so that we can ask 
for and allocate enough time.

As we did before when discussing the energy efficiency work, for example, the 
intent is to allocate a specific block of time to specific discussions.  We 
don't want these new topics to starve the existing work, or vise versa.  As 
always, discussion on the list is very, very important for all the topics.

- What’s the remaining use of the Routing Area plenary meeting? A top down 
summary of latest WG status?

I'll let the ADs answer.

Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to