Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 06 January 2015 21:15 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 07AB51A86DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:15:18 -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, 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 nPyhfEOMdjir for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A4051A854A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-96-107-228.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.96.107.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t06LFC8O023395 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 15:15:12 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-96-107-228.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.96.107.228] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <54AC505B.8090802@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:15:07 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/txsECVW98801b1wlwU5kmzR7vj8
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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 21:15:20 -0000
I'd like to focus for a moment on another part of Jari's original message. On 12/25/14 1:16 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Dear Community: > > In October, we let you know that we would be coming up with some proposals <trim/> > > > III. MERGING OF UPPER LAYER PROTOCOL AREAS > <trim/> > DISPATCH, TSVWG, and APPSAWG > would continue to function much as they currently do. > > I see this as problematic. RAI is currently operating following RFC 5727, where dispatch is defined. It is a consensus document describing how the area decided to behave. It does not seem right to say _parts_ of the new combined area will follow that consensus. How are you planning to avoid "well, that's the APPs part of <newareaname> and we do things like this over there"? If you're not planning to avoid that, then it's not really clear what problem the organization is really going to solve - the resulting ADs will have to behave the same regardless of their label. The arguments in the past about whether a group belonged in transport or RAI, while occasionally silly, were _usually_ helpful in clarifying the problem that the proposed group was starting to circle around. Some of the comments from active TSV members have touched on aspects of this already. As proposed, we will lose that tension, and I think we'll end up with muddier charters as a result. (There are other ways to preserve that tension, of course, but we would need to explicitly put them in place). If the thought of developing something like dispatch-related parts of RFC 5727 to describe how a new combined area (whatever its ingredients) plans to operate seems onerous, or too heavyweight, I'd take it as a warning that we're headed for something unpleasant, or that has no real effect on organization, improving the efficiency of making standards, making recruiting ADs easier, or reducing AD load. Rather than that, I hope we could fairly quickly come up with a good description of how such a combined area would behave, and I hope that's not "just like the pieces do now". RjS
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Lemon
- IETF areas re-organisation steps Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Huub van Helvoort
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Robert Sparks
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Paul Hoffman
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Steve Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Scott Brim
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Alia Atlas
- WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Stephen Farrell
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Alia Atlas
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Hardie
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Jari Arkko
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Alia Atlas
- Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps] Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Eggert, Lars
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Nico Williams
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Robert Sparks
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Alissa Cooper
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Robert Sparks
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Eggert, Lars
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Brian Trammell
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Mary Barnes
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Ben Campbell
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Benoit Claise
- RE: IETF areas re-organisation steps Larry Masinter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Yoav Nir
- RE: IETF areas re-organisation steps Larry Masinter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps joel jaeggli
- RE: IETF areas re-organisation steps Larry Masinter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Julian Reschke
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps t.p.