Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 06 January 2015 22:43 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9746D1A1B43 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:43:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77xx9aXxiAjy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7623A1A0053 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id b6so146600lbj.36 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:43:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YZ5ja9YbnQ4I+Ydx0OX//x6u/KavcCCPwK9r53YegHY=; b=OiJoQ6ra3D6oX/5e0ENuCiwpt4uElawVkYuTxYlCE4ioLFVrO+VheoQg54h0Pm9JEJ Gxbvg3Zvd1zgrHMKp3sZ1VPSXAAQObxiB1Bou6wqhv5yW93POXnorrbIpzodwr8HuF41 7jeOWieMnJSbbhqel71nAtts3+Jo12PACKK7fI1Jt6I+N0uzyyWSsJFMUuMepRbVQrMw EpQCtMZ+F61G1W6uhPP3ewDDq+YSmIl7zfsX8oFS8qLMLjN2LXQVAId1zfb9a9NH0Wlk 5TMsIxUcsxgNO9isTAYvfR8ph7uSQ3lFapMzuVklFZeTlxkBecjNCvajWvar/TQFo3/K N2UA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.188.201 with SMTP id gc9mr66998423lbc.6.1420584207948; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.185.195 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.185.195 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:43:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54AC505B.8090802@nostrum.com>
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <54AC505B.8090802@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:43:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-ceKxgSfRVnkjMCm1y_sicuP+f2nm21ggFXOjMMdwhQmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c37366169ea3050c0389c1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9wBk56IlBCbwCSYaehZQoSh6P3c
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 22:43:32 -0000
Hi, Robert, On Jan 7, 2015 5:15 AM, "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote: > > I'd like to focus for a moment on another part of Jari's original message. > > > On 12/25/14 1:16 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> >> Dear Community: >> >> In October, we let you know that we would be coming up with some proposals > > <trim/> > >> >> >> III. MERGING OF UPPER LAYER PROTOCOL AREAS >> > <trim/> > >> DISPATCH, TSVWG, and APPSAWG >> would continue to function much as they currently do. >> >> > I see this as problematic. > > RAI is currently operating following RFC 5727, where dispatch is defined. It is a consensus document describing how the area decided to behave. It does not seem right to say _parts_ of the new combined area will follow that consensus. How are you planning to avoid "well, that's the APPs part of <newareaname> and we do things like this over there"? If you're not planning to avoid that, then it's not really clear what problem the organization is really going to solve - the resulting ADs will have to behave the same regardless of their label. Speaking as 1/15th of the problem, thanks for mentioning this during the discussion. I can confirm that the IESG is aware of RFC 5727 and the definition of DISPATCH therein. I have asked that the IESG identify any other changes to active BCPs that would be required with various organizational changes being discussed. I would offer that the IESG has https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more/ on this week's telechat agenda, which did a full IETF consensus call about changing one word in a definition that appears in two key process BCPs, as evidence that we take the concern you're raising here seriously. > The arguments in the past about whether a group belonged in transport or RAI, while occasionally silly, were _usually_ helpful in clarifying the problem that the proposed group was starting to circle around. Some of the comments from active TSV members have touched on aspects of this already. As proposed, we will lose that tension, and I think we'll end up with muddier charters as a result. (There are other ways to preserve that tension, of course, but we would need to explicitly put them in place). Thanks for the background. As you would remember, I was a fan of the DISPATCH concept when it was put in place, and ended up chairing two working groups that were DISPATCHed (MARTINI and SIPCLF), but I wasn't as involved in RAI after joining the IAB in 2010. So, that's helpful for me. > If the thought of developing something like dispatch-related parts of RFC 5727 to describe how a new combined area (whatever its ingredients) plans to operate seems onerous, or too heavyweight, I'd take it as a warning that we're headed for something unpleasant, or that has no real effect on organization, improving the efficiency of making standards, making recruiting ADs easier, or reducing AD load. > > Rather than that, I hope we could fairly quickly come up with a good description of how such a combined area would behave, and I hope that's not "just like the pieces do now". Indeed. Indeed. Please keep that feedback coming in. Spencer
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Lemon
- IETF areas re-organisation steps Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Huub van Helvoort
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Robert Sparks
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Paul Hoffman
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Steve Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Scott Brim
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Alia Atlas
- WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Stephen Farrell
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Alia Atlas
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Hardie
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Jari Arkko
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Alia Atlas
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Eggert, Lars
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Nico Williams
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Robert Sparks
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Alissa Cooper
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Robert Sparks
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Eggert, Lars
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Brian Trammell
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Mary Barnes
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ben Campbell
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Benoit Claise
- RE: IETF areas re-organisation steps Larry Masinter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Yoav Nir
- RE: IETF areas re-organisation steps Larry Masinter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps joel jaeggli
- RE: IETF areas re-organisation steps Larry Masinter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Julian Reschke
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps t.p.