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

Stephen Farrell <> Fri, 26 December 2014 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123C01ACDDD for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:47:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vsbdaE3sGtJT for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55BF51ACDD6 for <>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760B8BF18; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:39 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGchu7TJYfN1; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C3ABBF17; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:38 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:37 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
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 <>,
Subject: Re: Out-of-area ADs [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


> 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