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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 26 December 2014 19:52 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 6D6271ACDED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:52:07 -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 AD9YjVBlaXjZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:52:05 -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 B33481ACDEC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75905BF18; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:52:04 +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 fAKSzk0D3Iq0; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:52:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.10] (unknown [86.41.53.28]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42659BF17; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:52:03 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <549DBC61.8020004@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:52:01 +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>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <7973.1419613616@sandelman.ca> <CAG4d1rcXa10moh7-V2oteV+3o8y0s+QwCTXaCWt5aBeRdPKv=A@mail.gmail.com> <549DB9A6.4050506@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <549DB9A6.4050506@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PE7H9aHMYDOoL7ucQ8BGrRb8GwI
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 19:52:07 -0000


On 26/12/14 19:40, Brian E Carpenter 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?

I don't think so. There are just huge differences in how different
WGs impinge on AD workload. I think we should look to try to spot
any imbalances that exist and adjust where needed. We do that already
within the SEC area, and ADs in other areas also do, but I don't
think we can use a number-of-WGs-per-AD metric except as the most
coarse grained measure. (And the out-of-area AD thing gives us
another tool to balance workloads.)

S.


> 
>     Brian
> 
> 
>