Sam,
Eliot == Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eliot What is the result of a SG hitting its mile stones?
We move on to evaluating its work.
Now, there is a question of what happens when an SG misses its
milestones. I could see an argument that hints at us being wrong
Hi.
I've been trying to follow this discussion from a safe distance,
but, given the amount of traffic, I want to add three general
observations to the mix, possibly summarizing some earlier
comments including my own:
(1) Drawing analogies from IEEE, or IEEE 802, procedures
to the
John,
Thank you for upleveling. I plead guilty to wandering through the detailed
design.
I agree without comment with the rest of your observations, but one stuck
out.
(2) As the discussion goes on, if appears to me that, in
practice, an SG is little more than a normal WG with an
unusual
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being Idea -- BoF-1 -- BoF-2
-- SG -- WG, I would be very disappointed and would chalk that up
under the law of unintended consequences :). I am hoping that Idea --
SG -- WG or Idea -- BoF1 -- SG -- WG in that order become the
norm (where SG is
--On Thursday, 11 October, 2007 10:03 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being Idea -- BoF-1
-- BoF-2 -- SG -- WG, I would be very disappointed and
would chalk that up under the law of unintended consequences
:).
Unfortunately, there
My cynicism hasn't reached that level yet, although people tell me that
it will get there very soon given some of the activities I have signed
up for. :)
That out of the way, the intention of the proposal is to provide a
framework for people with reasonable ideas for work at the IETF to
On 2007-10-11 21:10, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
As I wrote earlier, I am not at all sure that we should even have dates
associated with milestones with this kind of experiment.
I'm afraid that this would allow people to game the IETF by abusing
the SG mechanism to give their effort an appearance
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being Idea -- BoF-1 -- BoF-2
-- SG -- WG, I would be very disappointed and would chalk that up
under the law of unintended consequences :). I am hoping that Idea -- SG
-- WG or Idea -- BoF1 -- SG -- WG
On 10/11/2007 9:47 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being Idea -- BoF-1 --
BoF-2 -- SG -- WG, I would be very disappointed and would chalk
that up under the law of unintended consequences :). I am hoping that
Eliot == Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eliot If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be
Eliot to provide ADs some indication of level of interest and
Eliot ability to succeed.
Hmm. As I read the document, level of interest is explicitly out of
scope for the
Eric == Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric I think there's a more meta-issue here: do we think it would
Eric be good for the IETF to have more WGs? If the answer is
Eric yes, then it makes sense to foster new work in various
Eric ways. If the answer is no then it makes
Sam Hartman wrote:
Eliot == Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eliot If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be
Eliot to provide ADs some indication of level of interest and
Eliot ability to succeed.
Hmm. As I read the document, level of
Eliot == Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eliot What is the result of a SG hitting its mile stones?
We move on to evaluating its work.
Now, there is a question of what happens when an SG misses its
milestones. I could see an argument that hints at us being wrong that
we had sufficient
Sam Hartman said:
We move on to evaluating its work.
Now, there is a question of what happens when an SG misses its
milestones. I could see an argument that hints at us being wrong that
we had sufficient interest. Or perhaps an argument that the task we
set the SG was harder than anticipated.
From: Gabriel Montenegro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:20 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Eliot Lear; Eric Rescorla
Cc: Jari Arkko; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:29:48 +0200
From:Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 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
Eric,
I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider new work either,
and we do consider new work under the current system.
OK
However,
since the amount of work we can do is to a great degree constant,
that means that any new work should be more important than
whatever we're doing now. Making
Eric Rescorla said:
Arguably, SG formation should be subject to an IETF LC in the same way that
WG formation is.
I would agree -- and it would appear that this is already included in
Section 3:
Other than the abbreviated charter, the process for formation of a
Study Group is identical to
Hi, Bernard,
Spencer Dawkins said:
to use the IRTF as a home for WG explorations, in addition to research
Unfortunately, there are very few examples of the IRTF being used
successfully for this purpose. Rather than being a step toward WG
formation, the IRTF has often be used as a
Eric,
Thanks for your comments. A couple of responses inline:
I think there's a more meta-issue here: do we think it would be good
for the IETF to have more WGs? If the answer is yes, then it makes
sense to foster new work in various ways. If the answer is no then
it makes sense to treat
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:03:35 +0300,
Jari Arkko wrote:
But the issues with scheduling, lack of attention for important
topics, and low quality of new work proposals are real concerns.
I have a slightly different take on this than what you had above,
however.
INT is probably the most
Inline please,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:03:35 +0300,
Jari Arkko wrote:
But the issues with scheduling, lack of attention for important
topics, and low quality of new work proposals are real concerns.
I have a slightly different take on this than what you had above,
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
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
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]; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL
PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02 The way
I see
Gabriel,
It occurs to me that we don't need to invent a new process here. The
IRTF houses different types of research groups:
We don't _have_ to invent new process -- in addition to IRTF
RGs, there's obviously the default option of keeping post-BOF /
pre-WG efforts outside the formal IETF
, October 08, 2007 11:19 AM
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
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
Thanks Jari, Eric. Some notes inline ...
On 10/8/2007 12:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
snip
Currently this
document simply has it at the IESG's discretion:
If at any point during the Working Group formation process, including
after a first or second BoF session, interest within the IETF
Yes, and this translates in IETF speech into having a viable technical
concept which is caught in a sound charter, proved resources and
community interest plus early code and individual I-Ds as very desirable
additions.
A SG process would not replace those, but could help achieve them in a
more
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Thanks Jari, Eric. Some notes inline ...
On 10/8/2007 12:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
snip
Currently this
document simply has it at the IESG's discretion:
If at any point during the Working Group formation process,
On 2007-10-09 07:30, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
big snip
My
observation based on some of the BoFs I have been involved with recently
is that far too much time is wasted between two BoF sessions. With
little or no discussion between
Hi Eric,
Following up on this ...
On 10/8/2007 11:30 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Thanks Jari, Eric. Some notes inline ...
On 10/8/2007 12:03 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
snip
Currently this
document simply has it at the IESG's
On 10/8/2007 1:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-09 07:30, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:13:50 -0700,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
big snip
My observation based on some of the BoFs I have been involved with
recently is that far too much time is wasted between two BoF
$Id: draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02-rev.txt,v 1.2 2007/10/08 01:38:07 ekr Exp $
I don't find the motivation for this work particularly compelling:
In some situations, while interest on the part of IETF participants
and end-users may be evident, and the relevance to the Internet
community
34 matches
Mail list logo
