Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <> Thu, 18 July 2013 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521D511E8160 for <>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wKhaQllISokL for <>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B895D21E8128 for <>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r6IFZB5W015405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:35:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (GMO) with ESMTP id r6IFZ90E025145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:35:10 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:35:10 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <>
To: Spencer Dawkins <>, Paul Kyzivat <>
Thread-Topic: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
Thread-Index: AQHOg8XA0MIGt+zYS0KEt9WCtiPXjplqkKpA
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:35:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B06CB41FR712WXCHMBA11zeu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Real-time Applications and Infrastructure \(RAI\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:36:32 -0000

As a process experiment, that already exists - what do you think dispatch has been doing for the last few years.

It seems more to me that Harald is raising the question of whether that applies to MMUSIC.

In terms of the current thorny problem that Harald wants to resolve - no it would not have helped at all - he would still have a thorny problem, and it would probably have been shot down at the IETF review stage rather than having the discussion in the working groups.


From: [] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: 18 July 2013 15:48
To: Paul Kyzivat
Subject: Re: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

On 7/18/2013 8:55 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

What you say makes some sense to me.

But if we were to act on it then I think we need to replace some WGs with review panels. (We have an SDP directorate, but I don't think that is a sufficient replacement for mmusic.) And so we will need some clear processes for review panels. How would we process drafts that would otherwise have been handled through the standanding wg? Would they be AD sponsored? And we may need to schedule meeting sessions for review panels too.

This seems like it would need to be an ietf-wide change, not just RAI. (But maybe we could pilot it in RAI.)

I could be in the rough on this, but if RAI wants to head in that direction, I'd suggest doing so in RAI alone as an process experiment. That would bypass two frequent sources of failure:

  *   Getting everyone in the entire IETF to agree (at least roughly) to that this is where we all want to go, and
  *   Getting everyone in the entire IETF to agree (at least roughly) to change BCP text for the entire IETF, with no operational experience.

>From RFC 3933:

   The IESG is explicitly authorized to use this mechanism (based on

   Experimental RFCs) to gain experience with proposed changes to BCP

   specifications.  There is no requirement to approve a BCP

   specification for the experiment until the experiment is found to

   have value.


   In each case, the IESG's decision to go forward (or not) with a

   procedural experiment, or the steps leading up to one, is expected to

   reflect their judgment of the existence of rough consensus in the

   community.  That judgment may be appealed using the usual procedures,

   but the IESG and the community are reminded that an experimental

   attempt to try something for a fixed period is typically a better

   engineering approach than extended philosophical discussion without

   any experience to back it up.

No one understands the last sentence better than Harald, of course ...