Comments on draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-01
SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 13 July 2012 19:42 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BBF11E80FF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qFTExzlKs+S2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B8F11E8101 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6DJgWC5022181; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1342208557; bh=MaYNG94Tg1rLkq82CCeDY1xbmHH8r0BouW3YEmIlb4o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=nb5JkqY61kreIUyMX6/euzPfD7KV9qEDeXQwNH/koYx74DPzJFK0z6fWG7stiX79N +yF9LhHhZK01ZVl6+Lpmu25VER29SXjBrkFvQpF3cqzWhOZwpJyKcumAF7XPKZ4JeG PA6hqDR+z4kpCmAWzQRmPtt+vVjnsFP7w4uaYxHY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1342208557; i=@resistor.net; bh=MaYNG94Tg1rLkq82CCeDY1xbmHH8r0BouW3YEmIlb4o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=bykHOnK1tConVvkq/YhbYyLCTUplWaF3w6q5bC9Z+4fdGPP60DDa9XkPod2JRL6qb iklTyRT4MH+z8MnbmTHKYDs4dBDJriK3tE44hnfq4R5DI8Fhyz5AwKmohxxMm+bSqC RUmixwm9WyQxs36ghm/fpCuFzTqqr60wO1nhK23s=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120713091055.099f8d78@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:41:56 -0700
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Comments on draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-01
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:42:06 -0000
Hi Jari, In Section 3: "In other cases different organizations may have specific expertise that is helpful to solve a problem." Did you mean individuals? In Section 4: "Current IETF scheduling principle is centered around a sequences of meetings of working groups in the same area." There are some area-wide groups meetings. I'll list the area against the areas for the WGs meeting at the same time: APP - INT OPS RAI RTG TSV TSV - APP INT OPS RAI RTG INT - APP OPS RAI SEC TSV RTG - APP INT OPS RAI SEC SEC - INT OPS RAI RTG APP and SEC can follow each other. The other areas have more conflicts. In Section 5: "Cross-area review. Similarly, expertise is not brought in by an area designation, it is brought through the right people actually reading the specifications. Encouraging cross-area review is therefore helpful, for instance through directorates assigned to review important documents from other areas." How are important documents from other areas identified? I rarely see messages saying "this might be of interest to your area" with an explanation to incite interest (excluding "please review my draft"). The cross-area review may be perceived by some people as a burden they could do away with. There is the following question in the write-up: "Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective?" There are rarely cross-area comments in reply to that question. The list of directorates and review teams is at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html Most of them rarely do reviews. There was a draft with five (or more) listed authors. None of them responded to the review. The AD provided feedback. There is a document shepherd for each draft. Only a few of them are responsive. The reviewer ends up trying to explain to the author(s) details which the document shepherd could have done. There should be a checkbox somewhere which says "further review is discouraged". Reviewers would not have to waste their time and effort reading a long draft. They don't have any financial or other interest in it anyway. So why bother? "Extensions for a specific application purpose (such as delivering location information) must be owned by some other working group that is chartered to develop those applications (such as the GEOPRIV WG in the Real-Time Applications Area)." Stephen Farrell posted a question during a Last Call ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73924.html ). I didn't see any feedback from GEOPRIV on that. "Scheduling models for the IETF should take cross-area work into account in a better way. Possible tools to improve this include ability to specify ADs from multiple areas as interested in a working group or the ability to specify entire areas as conflicts in the meeting request tool." The above focuses on how to get the relevant ADs in the room. It's more about AD scheduling than cross-area scheduling. One could look at this in terms of the relation of the work with other areas. There was a message from ADs in an area requesting a summary of what their WGs have been up to. It's a way for the average participant to get a quick view of what has being discussed and what are the issues. The person might also be able to identify topics of interest. That's more fine-grained than area. It might attract a larger number of participants. I'll highlight an important point from the draft: "People matter, organizations do not. The essence of most cross- area work is getting the right expertise to the room and to the list. This does not happen through mere organizational forms, people have to be interested about the problem." Let's take the IESG out of the equation. How do you get people will the right expertise in the room and on the list? The draft mentions "chair and advisor" selection. That addresses the organizational form. Most people are volunteers and do not have the time to keep up with more than a few mailing lists. Some of them might end up following only Area WGs during a meeting. There isn't much opportunity, or maybe it's a lack of incentive, to talk to people from outside the area. The draft is well-written and it covers the challenges. I am left with a sense that the recommendations are viewed more in terms of meetings and the IESG. Regards, -sm