Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 26 December 2014 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 CE6681ACE08 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:59:02 -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 BvQS_PPLUcnd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yh0-x236.google.com (mail-yh0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D1F1ACE07 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yh0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 29so5703486yhl.41 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:59:00 -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=+vcmf0DSJC91sHzOa+xqHz4S36b32AuqXbsbWfLskAc=; b=IHlUR8foJblQnS7KuWHV+XO3p99daQs4kImQNi6Kdb+HKDDNb0jvQyXWdAlnzkZ4YE xAYn30rjc/rFlc5nWur5A+2eLUfrE6QD7BAPhsjdPZuCQH8ty36ccH5mnQQVQO/dQHOb 0YOP5rbD9o9WTnSjys6ozHlRvw2SVfjLAowJmX6JOnytQcXjXaKiZSeo/Z2t5w0AR6Nu T/K7Ja/lh7I6iROGwX5X7/MwqcRhjkjz8N8EPSr2FGcFUinFNFBt9G+3wy8FEfIiZFsy uoL7ZgXdk5s0h8e/jI2DffMJcZrhYJZSsvmjggsJ2VTOCTDmNANVXvd9IXqnb0oEVYbR iYlA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.17.109 with SMTP id i73mr12120607yhi.107.1419623940402; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:59:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.133.18 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:59:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <549DB9A6.4050506@gmail.com>
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <7973.1419613616@sandelman.ca> <CAG4d1rcXa10moh7-V2oteV+3o8y0s+QwCTXaCWt5aBeRdPKv=A@mail.gmail.com> <549DB9A6.4050506@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:59:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rc3vB693OAW8KrzVaZ3hkdL1OuD=4dByVVW7yuD0+Otvg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158bc66aeb3e4050b23f439
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NBArQzAlT0XfHRmaOY8_laOJtPs
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF-Discussion list <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: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:59:03 -0000

Hi Brian,

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/12/2014 06:46, Alia Atlas wrote:
> ...
> >> I'm a little bit surprised that the RTG area load has gone up like this,
> >> and so quickly.  Is it the various SDN things that are pushing this, or
> is it
> >> that the RTG area currently has the most enthusiasm for YANG work?
> >>
> >
> > It's a mixture of things combined with RTG already being at the very top
> edge
> > of workload.  In RTG we have/will have about 21 active WGs; if we add a
> > third routing AD,
> > then RTG will absorb 3 WGs from INT.  Granted that one is not active and
> may
> > be merged in, we are still looking at about 23 WGs for RTG with a more
> > average load being about 8 WGs/AD.
>
> So let's be frank about this. Today (excluding the General Area AD
> with his crippling load of 1 WG) we have 129 WGs for 14 Ads,
> which is 9.2 WGs/AD. That is clearly too many, so should there
> be a target ratio and a plan for reaching it?
>

No, as you well know, it depends on the size and business of the WGs, the
management load, etc., as well as the number.  Clearly we don't want to not
create new WGs when appropriate nor to discourage existing useful work.
This is a question of balancing load and there is a surge of YANG-related
work
which does require more focused management.  Is it better to have 2 ADs at
100%-120% and others with less load when the size of the IESG would be
otherwise
reduced.  Are you suggesting that suggesting another routing AD to take
load from RTG and INT
is a bad idea compared to dropping the IESG to 14 & eventually 13?

Are you simply concerned with the dynamics of how many ADs have the various
perspectives on the IESG?

Obviously, we are looking for feedback and opinions and ideas.  Do you have
other
well thought out suggestions?

Regards,
Alia



>     Brian
>
>