On 7/15/2013 11:17 AM, John Leslie wrote:
I might have opinions about the details, but want to strongly encourage
people to take John's words to heart:
"True, but we need to make the NOMCOM's job possible."
What I'd like to see, is a description that some reasonable number of
nominees are willing to be considered against. If some willing nominees
have additional areas of expertise and experience that would be helpful
for a TSV AD, great -and please tell the Nomcom that. But Nomcom need to
start with a list of willing nominees that they can ask for feedback on.
Spencer
Scharf, Michael (Michael) <[email protected]> wrote:
[Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]> wrote:]
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/TransportExpertise
...
The Transport Area works on...
what about "The Transport Area works on end-to-end transport protocols,
mechanisms related to performance and congestion control, as well as
technologies for network storage, content delivery, and peer-to-peer
applications" ?
This strikes me as reasonable.
The Transport Area intersects most frequently with Internet Area,
the Applications Area, the RAI Area, the Security Area, and the
IRTF ICCRG research groups. Cross-area expertise in any of those
Areas would be particularly useful.
s/IRTF ICCRG research groups/IRTF research groups such as ICCRG/ ?
I don't see the need for this. ICCRG is almost joined-at-the-hip,
but interaction with other IRTF groups is the exception.
Current and new transport work includes...
TCPM is currently pretty busy with "extensions to existing transport
protocols". And not all of them are about congestion signaling or
multipath ;)
True; but this is not text we expect to revise every year. TSV ADs
are not expected to have expertise in the work of _every_ TSV WG.
A Transport AD should have a broad understanding...
At least TCPM also has to be aware of middleboxes other than NATs
and firewalls, including gateways that mess up TCP options, all kinds
of load balancers, transparent caches, etc.
The WG needs such expertise, but does the AD need it?
For instance: s/NATs and firewalls/middleboxes such as NATs and
firewalls/ ?
For myself, I'd prefer not to require middlebox expertise of TSV ADs.
I also have the impression that TSV work is often related to operation
system design and implementation issues. There is a lot of literature
on the principles of congestion control. Unfortunately, there is much
less literature that provides insight whether a given RFC can indeed
be implemented robustly in a production TCP/IP stack or a real network
element...
True, but we need to make the NOMCOM's job possible. IMHO, we
shouldn't ask TSV ADs to be experts on implementation issues.
--
John Leslie <[email protected]>
