Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin wrote:
>     but the summary is that I
> believe the growth of work being done in nominal ISs is a
> healthy adaptation to some evolution in the Applications Area.

+1 to all of John's summary comments.  They do such a nice job about the 
question that they probably should be published on a page somewhere.



  >> (BTW, I'm sure I can follow the advice of "Use your judgement"
>> if anybody decides to say that, but it doesn't really inform
>> that judgement does it?  )
> 
> "Use your judgment" is, in fact, probably the right answer. 

Obtaining the support of an AD is an important part of the filtering process 
for IETF work, whether as a WG or an IS. That should not change.

Although I think that John did not quite say it this way, I would suggest 
using 3 questions:

1. Import:  Is the work worthy of sponsoring and spending time on?

2. Process:  Is there a strong reason for pressing to have the work incur the 
administrative effort and protracted schedule of an IETF working group? What 
is it?

3. Support:  Is the work already being done diligently without a formal 
working group or is there a good indication it will be?  That is, are there 
adequate indications of current (or likely) community need and participation 
to make it likely that the document a) will be (or has been) developed with 
consensus and b) will be used by the community?


Good work can happen outside an IETF working group.  Bad work can happen 
inside one.  So the most useful way to decide whether to sponsor some work is 
to consider import (quality and impact) and support questions rather than 
process questions.


>> Is an IS that defines a new protocol for the Standards Track
>> fine in general?
>> Is an IS that extends a standard protocol developed in a WG
>> fine in general?
>> Is an IS that obsoletes a standard protocol developed in a WG
>> fine in general?
> 
> In each case, I don't think there is an "in general".  I think
> you need to monitor the situations and the amount and quality of
> review.   I think it is also important that we not automatically
> assume that having a WG implies extensive and competent review

+1. Perhaps a heuristic -- along with my #3, above, is to consider the 
complexity and risk of the work.  That said, one can argue that working groups 
actually increase risk. (Yes, I'm serious. Note John's comments about 
uninformed participation.  I'll also note that working groups have a habit of 
expanding scope and functionality of the work and that that is usually 
detrimental to its timeline and utility, IMO.)



>> Do IS's suffer from less review?  Is that a problem?
>> Whose responsibility is it to get sufficient review?
> 
> The responsibility ought to lie with the authors and proposers.
 > I believe that it is their responsibility to convince you, the
 > IESG, and whatever portion of the community is interested and

+1.

Perhaps more ought to lie with authors and proposers for working groups, but 
it's clear that an IS places (or should place) more burden on them.


>     One key difference
> between WG-produced and individual submission documents is that,
> because WGs go through a formal qualification and chartering
> process, there is a presumption that their work is relevant,
> appropriate for standardization, and has been reviewed. 

It also has the considerable benefit of being required to state its goals and 
deliverables explicitly (and clearly?)


  None of
> those presumptions automatically apply to an IS document;

Not automatically but I would claim that *all* good work should contain 
statements about this in the document.


>> Should I limit time spent sponsoring IS's? [1]  IESG work plus
>> IS work could consume 30 hours a week, or 40, or 50...
>>
>> Assuming I limit the potentially endless amount of work
>> devoted to IS's, do I limit it algorithmically (e.g. first
>> come first served),  as a matter of pure taste, or other?
>> How should I prioritize IS sponsoring work? Which documents
>> get my attention first?  [2]
> 
> I think you have to look at subject matter and depth of support.
> My observation above about a variety of mechanisms being
> subsumed under "individual submissions" is important here. 

+2

Focus on the nature, quality and importance of the work, not on whether it is 
formally a wg.  Productivity and utility, rather than formality.


  In
> most cases, if some individual shows up and says "I have this
> pet idea and I think it should be an IETF standard", you should
> send him or her away until and unless they can demonstrate
> support in the community for both the idea and for standardizing
> it. 

+1.  But then, this is exactly the type of shepherding role that ADs provide 
for wg formation, too, I think.


>> Does sponsoring many IS documents give an AD, and the IESG as
>> a whole, too much power?
> 
> Not in and of itself.  Consistent bad judgment might, but this
> is not the only topic around which bad judgment can result in a
> concentration of power in the IESG.  And, if the community
> doesn't have a way to deal with bad judgment by ADs, the problem
> to be solved isn't one of too many IS documents.

Interesting topic.


>> Are we discouraging legitimate WGs by encouraging IS's?
> 
> Occasionally, probably so.  We are also discouraging
> illegitimate WGs, would-be WGs that waste a lot of time and
> never get organized, WGs with such a high noise:signal ratio

+1.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net