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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 26 December 2014 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 123C01ACDDD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:47:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 vsbdaE3sGtJT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55BF51ACDD6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760B8BF18; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:39 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGchu7TJYfN1; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.10] (unknown [86.41.53.28]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C3ABBF17; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:38 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <549DBB59.7060200@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:37 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Out-of-area ADs [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]
References: <5614C286-0CD2-4DAD-A846-510EE38D1B9A@ietf.org> <549DAE1C.5080400@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <549DAE1C.5080400@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IsZxoSyl6m7e5CjsouopYd1bmgE
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: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:44 -0000

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
> 
>