Re: Request for feedback - IESG thoughts about new work proposals

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 12 October 2017 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655E5133158 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 YJ6zK9oxT8Hp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD27133085 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p1so15923638qtg.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=l4I95PsXZ2StswgOZLG5Uiw1NpHY1XmSKhtW6mssUdI=; b=RM0t6jxhd1KBNBUXr4Wwq55/08S0qR+QYQ3DcisWtCQZth+nipD5bupar1TcJ4UelS 3fS5Pp2dWjjKsK/vPDqhZBArD5Ka2VTcUtwHVQhhSQzBwytTLh3w3/A40wKUKZ6kA+ne tH2uliF6rJfG/yuNY1q+KmI/3ZmrvfiAK3s7XP9ySajWSlBEOnZUtlkghdjSP0PcKtp5 /ZyV0FG6yI4UkWaVeIscSyIaUz6FUgza0NbaSDuumYZqENg0/DxeRgASNoQD6QbCjo6O cvFwtf6qCLklzmUpk5ddQR5FmJKhJes9mm7xV1Pbg5GfCzfKhgVHZ9es8eszX9wJf0u+ K+iw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=l4I95PsXZ2StswgOZLG5Uiw1NpHY1XmSKhtW6mssUdI=; b=Kq46Jth9XCMOsQU//da0Uv/0Ud9QpSAorDlH+I/pYiSq2E1b87+GO3r706wM9qmcJN uwAlF7RH/XVpXQovJ4u2KwqXgY7A9hltyzBOjYJLshv/WjmMyIw+0ymgX/qYtE5AyJpY hdOGORANWVQ/U9lFBvQLU+8L3BuJq3ikBY3AF//yJrwPCaqt1OKYhoHVAAKYAv2oW/p8 7dK5+30p0l3hFMu9IuDOqd3bb28ks+m4y0uZM77vU21nsHmheSIu9n6qZJuwRjoZ9fK0 /mnZSmygVl1oiU5lJbNtSgFwecqwbh33sQu3V66u6AJJJhv6Te7tCJaP3L3N8o0R7DjH 9xDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXdVIR9148bssPNEPzkWjTgMbui15gEOKu2taBsms1Wm0MY9XoI YznNlYt3j32MvDhXhvbGT9uhLNpLknJBCADkC14=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBgqS+eWtoF9vWOp2n3P6Enrwx5+SDuuaTURZ2q1aWc24LnXKPA1Jws3Yb6ILQeOhlB6vBJ5wmsz3zKC6C5uIU=
X-Received: by 10.37.105.142 with SMTP id e136mr2572946ybc.518.1507840126265; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.107.68 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7d45859d-6efc-5576-e413-8c9162c42776@gmail.com>
References: <CAKKJt-fAaNPeeuSfS0Dv6vTAOXR=OS2XSKqPVMyxxr1O1tLwBg@mail.gmail.com> <7d45859d-6efc-5576-e413-8c9162c42776@gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:28:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-ergSJvmzzOCaNP-iEk1i80UCpst-oaHpVoZg8PxFZRTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Request for feedback - IESG thoughts about new work proposals
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14ed841aae93055b5f63d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/i-BRRdbvStYukvKWEoLCmgzqZjs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:28:49 -0000

Hi, Brian,

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Spencer,
>
> On 12/10/2017 02:21, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> > The IESG has spent considerable time discussing how we can improve our
> > ability to charter new work as soon as it’s ready and ensure proposals
> have
> > the resources needed for success.
>
> I pretty much support the proposed approach as far as WG-forming BOFs
> are concerned; and I think we should also support the IESG's right to
> Just Say No too. I've been amazed for years by this apparent constant
> of nature: the number of IETF WGs is approximately 120. Why?
>

I assumed it was a natural law :-) ...


> However:
> ...
> > The IESG has received some BOF requests that describe interesting
> problems
> > at considerable length but do not clearly identify what the BOF
> proponents
> > want the IETF to do. When that happens, we cannot approve a BOF intended
> to
> > form a working group.
> >
> > In some cases, area directors might approve a non-WG-forming BOF to tease
> > out the details of the BOF proposal, but often that isn’t the best way
> > forward.
>
> This bothers me, because it makes non-WG-forming BOFs sound like second
> class citizens, and I think that's wrong.


Then the text is giving the wrong impression. My apologies for that.

I think they're important.

Every area is different, but in TSV, I've approved about as many
non-WG-forming BOFs as WG-forming BOFs. They're not consolation prizes.


> A non-WG-forming BOF has two
> possible outcomes (in general terms):
>
> 1. There's something here that seems to need doing. Start working towards
> a WG-forming BOF.
>

I'd broadly agree, with a couple of additions.

It's worth reminding the community that BOFs aren't required to form a
working group, so I think this is "start working towards a new (or revised)
charter, and that might lead to a WG-forming BOF, or to a charter that is
ready to be approved without a BOF".

I've been saying for a while that much of the new work proposals we see
that's interesting, spans working groups and even areas, so I think this is
"one or more new or revised charters".


> 2. There's nothing coherent here. Forget about it for now, as far as
> the IETF is concerned. (There may be subsidiary outcomes here, like
> suggesting some IRTF activity, but as far as IETF resources go, it's
> over.)
>

I agree, and "for now" is important. Even in the BOF wiki, we say "not
approved for this IETF", rather than "rejected until the end of time". If
the outcome should change at some point in the future, we're listening.


> Both of these are good outcomes from the IETF's viewpoint.
>
> +1.

Spencer