Re: Out-of-area ADs [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

Just on the generic issues you raised (i.e. not on anima)...

On 26/12/14 18:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 26/12/2014 08:25, IETF Chair wrote:
>> The IESG proposes
>> to experiment with this approach initially by shifting to out-of-area ADs for
>> RADEXT, DIME, LMAP, and ANIMA, perhaps with another few WGs to follow.
> 
> I have some doubt whether this approach should ever be considered
> normal, rather than exceptional. If it becomes considered normal, it
> would imply that our assignment of WGs to Areas, and of ADs to Areas,
> are often incorrect.

Or that the area definitions need re-examination, or that cross-area
work has become common for some other reason. At minimum, if we have
this tool, and if it's overused, we have another way to detect that
something needs re-adjusting. In fact, I think it'll be more useful
than that myself.

> There is also a practical aspect - meeting scheduling. At the moment,
> a rough-and-ready rule is: never schedule more than 2 sessions for the
> same Area at the same time, which guarantees that an AD is available
> for each sessions. With numerous out-of-area ADs, this aspect of
> scheduling will become very complicated.

Actually that's gotten better with the new tooling that handles
conflicts reasonably well. And in most cases where we've mentioned
possible out-of-area ADs I think we'd likely already have considered
the same conflict.

Cheers,
S.

> I have a specific concern about considering an out-of-area AD for
> ANIMA. It's a new WG and the current AD invested heavily in the
> chartering process. I would be very concerned about changing that
> before the WG is well established.



> 
>     Brian
> 
>