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

Pete Resnick <> Sun, 28 December 2014 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A090C1A7022 for <>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 08:15:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qLHhvQxmIgyh for <>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 08:15:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 051661A7000 for <>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 08:15:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1419783310; x=1451319310; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I1g7JdP5cUbGsz39r5CqaaIY9kHw9XuMLvplr+TvlwE=; b=liXAGnJvAIYdICTb3mGECWGS0kcuhTjkMcdUyyKJTPU6LCwEowhfULLy UECcFSSVUc05r2yi9z65+ItOE5jZ56f/5QaQ1290Ye6usLAOBqdknJ2V+ v2AWypvfYJSIbT9IO/urnF/EQVKgDUXLZ/4lkrS08sLP3FNCihjxtVV8X A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7664"; a="95640220"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Dec 2014 08:15:09 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,655,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="819807663"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 28 Dec 2014 08:15:09 -0800
Received: from presnick-mac.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 08:15:08 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 11:15:06 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
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="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
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: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 16:15:14 -0000

On 12/26/14 1:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> If it becomes considered normal, it
> would imply that our assignment of WGs to Areas, and of ADs to Areas,
> are often incorrect.

Do note the explanation for this in our original message, as I think you 
have an embedded assumption that's at least non-obvious:

> There are numerous instances where the constituency of a WG exists
> in a particular IETF area, but the most appropriate AD for that work happens
> to be in a different area, or where the ADs in the area are simply overloaded
> and an AD outside of the area is perfectly capable of managing the work.

To expand a bit: We do think having WGs in particular Areas is useful, 
and we think generally we're getting our assignment of WGs to particular 
Areas correct: At the scale of an Area, it is generally quite obvious 
and natural that the kind of work we want done in a WG falls to a 
particular IETF constituency, and those folks are normally in a 
particular Area.

However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a 
"correct" AD for every WG, or that the AD whose main area (or Area) of 
expertise is always the best person to manage any particular WG. There 
are obvious examples like APP WGs that, while really needing the 
constituency of the APP area to come to consensus on the work, really 
are better coordinated by a SEC AD. But there are also examples of ADs 
like (to take an easy example) Spencer, who has perfectly good layer-3 
*and* layer-4 chops, and for any given WG he might be the ideal AD, 
whether it's an INT WG or an TSV WG. Just because we have Spencer be the 
responsible AD for an INT WG doesn't mean we've incorrectly assigned him 
to TSV (his protestations notwithstanding). He may be a perfect fit for 
the overall guiding of the TSV Area, and having him think broadly about 
those issues might be exactly what we want him to do. But for a given 
INT WG we might be perfectly comfortable that the Area-wide issues will 
be well-handled by the participants in the WG, and Spencer's skills at 
AD and his particular expertise might be the best fit for shepherding 
that WG's work through the process.

We think the current way we've been doing assignments are a bit too 
rigid. It *should* be normal for us to assign specific WGs to the best 
AD for that WG, even if the best AD for the Area happens to be a 
different AD. That flexibility should let us redistribute the load as 
needed, and hopefully make it easier for the NomCom to fill slots.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478