Spencer Dawkins writes:
> 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.
I guess I ought to introduce myself, although I see that Dave Harrington's
already gotten that off to a fine start in his description of his experiences
as a TSV AD ...
TSV has responsibility for storage protocols that need to operate over the
Internet. These include NFS, and Internet interfaces for SCSI and Fibre
Channel. All of these were developed elsewhere. Sun, of course, developed
NFS and donated version 4 for standardization. SCSI and Fiber Channel are
standardized by other SDOs, and we develop the interfaces to the Internet
(iSCSI, FCIP, etc.), and provide feedback to the SCSI and FC SDOs. The IETF
standards for these run in the 300-page document range, and are largely
unrelated to other IETF work. The chairs and the editors really understand
their stuff, and TSV ADs can generally just "let them run" - until they
submit their 300-page documents for IESG review.
That sure sounds like it includes me, especially as I just asked Martin to
(finally) send the 300+ page storm WG draft that consolidates and revises
the iSCSI specs off to the RFC Editor ;-).
I've also done quite a bit of other transport work, including QoS and
congestion control (RFCs in both topic areas), plus the things I ride
herd on as a tsvwg chair, as well as having multiple published RFCs in
other IETF areas, e.g., Security. So, looking at the description (which
I agree is already much improved over last year's), with an eye to how
it fits me, the following two paragraphs appear to be the core of the
matter - description of expected technical background/expertise:
-----------------------
Current and new transport work includes congestion signaling and reporting,
QoS and reservation signaling, DiffServ? and congestion control for
unresponsive flows, NAT regularization and specification, storage protocols for
the Internet, peer-to-peer streaming, performance metrics for Internet paths,
experimentation with congestion control schemes developed in the IRTF,
multipath extensions to existing transport protocols, and congestion control
algorithms for interactive real time media.
A Transport AD should have a broad understanding of core end-to-end
transport topics such as congestion control, flow control, real-time transport
protocols, NATs and firewalls, and related topics such as storage protocols. It
is not necessarily important to be an expert in any of these, as it is much
more important to be knowledgeable in the principles of these transport topics,
such as congestion control and congestion management, Intserv and Diffserv. A
Transport AD should have good relationships with the topic experts in the
Transport area and also other areas, which in turn requires good soft skills.
-----------------------
The first paragraph is scary - I see ten listed areas of activity, about
half of which I can reasonably claim some expertise in. As John Leslie
noted:
> TSV ADs are not expected to have expertise in the work of _every_ TSV WG.
The second paragraph is much better, so I'd suggest adding a disclaimer
sentence at the end of the first paragraph to capture John's point and
help focus attention on the second paragraph. For example:
Transport ADs are not expected to be experts on all or even most of
these topics, but rather to work well with the Transport Area participants
who are, and to have enough familiarity to exercise their own good judgment
about what should be done and why.
In the second paragraph, I foresee problems with "and related topics such
as storage protocols". While I fit those words rather well ;-), I'm a bit
unusual in that regard - Dave Harrington's comment (quoted above) on
storage protocols is apt:
The IETF standards for these ... are largely unrelated to other
IETF work. The [storage] chairs and the editors really understand
their stuff, and TSV ADs can generally just "let them run".
As I said in the tsvarea meeting in Orlando, I've never had to turn any of
the many TSV ADs whom I've worked with into SCSI, Fibre Channel or storage
experts - both they and the storage communities in the WGs that I've chaired
are better off for that not having been necessary. I might change those
words to "and related topics such as application use of transport protocols".
That would involve considerations around topics such as head-of-line
blocking and multiple parallel transport connections - that overall topic
area applies to transport-related issues in WGs such as core and httpbis.
Thanks,
--David
p.s. I'd include Diffserv in the description, as there is enough active
diffserv-related work, at least at the moment.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Martin Stiemerling
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:39 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Feedback request: The desired expertise of a Transport Area Director
>
> Hi all,
>
> The IESG makes a write-up about the desired expertise of Area Directors
> in general and also for each area. This write-up is sent to the NOMCOM.
>
> You can find the write-up for the last round here:
> https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/iesg-requirements
>
>
> The desired expertise was also discussed during the Transport Area Open
> Meeting at the IETF-86 meeting in Orlando. Please check the meeting
> minutes for the feedback the community provided:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-tsvarea
>
>
> There is now a new write-up for the upcoming deliberations of the
> NOMCOM, taking the comments received in the IETF-86 area meeting into
> account:
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/TransportExpertise
>
>
> The general part, as well as the write-ups for the other areas, is
> available here:
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DesiredExpertise
>
>
> Please note that these write-ups are reflecting the view of the IESG and
> not of the NOMCOM or the community at large.
>
>
> However, Spencer and I are requesting your feedback about the Transport
> Area Director part.
>
> Please send your feedback either to the TSV-Area list, directly to
> Spencer and/or me, or to the IESG until
>
> ***Thursday, 2013-07-18 10am EDT***
>
> This is the deadline for the IESG to approve what the IESG sends to NOMCOM.
>
> You can always send feedback about the desired expertise to the NOMCOM!
> After that date/time, please send feedback about any of the IESG
> position descriptions to the NOMCOM.
>
> Your Transport ADs
>
> Spencer and Martin
>
> --
> [email protected]
>
> NEC Laboratories Europe
> NEC Europe Limited
> Registered Office:
> Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB
> Registered in England 2832014
