RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

[Andrew Allen <[e-mail]>]

So I think your first task is to write a draft that clearly explains the problems and the requirements to solve those problems without addressing the specifics of the solutions you envision and then achieve consensus on the problems and requirements.

-----Original Message-----
From: Khaled Omar [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:16 AM
To: Andrew Allen <[e-mail]>; Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>; Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>
Cc: ietf <[e-mail]>; rtgwg <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

> If there is consensus that there are problems to solve then it can be determined whether a solution can be achieved by small enhancements to existing protocols or whether a totally new protocol is needed and which WG should be assigned such work or whether a BOF is needed to establish a new WG to do the work. Only then should there be major discussion on the technical solution(s).

I agree with that.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Allen [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:55 PM
To: Christer Holmberg; Robert Wilton; Khaled Omar
Cc: ietf; rtgwg
Subject: RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

IMHO a draft that identifies the current problems separate from the draft that proposes solutions is probably the best way forward. Then the discussion can first take place around reaching a consensus that there is a problem(s) that needs solving and isn't already addressed by existing work. 

Such drafts describing the problem and requirements for a solution are what is usually requested from 3GPP when 3GPP identify that some additional enhancements are required. For significant work a step wise approach is required to get to the final solution and the community has to be first convinced that there is a problem that is worth solving.

If there is consensus that there are problems to solve then it can be determined whether a solution can be achieved by small enhancements to existing protocols or whether a totally new protocol is needed and which WG should be assigned such work or whether a BOF is needed to establish a new WG to do the work. Only then should there be major discussion on the technical solution(s).

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:19 AM
To: Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>; Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: ietf <[e-mail]>; rtgwg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

Hi,

>As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully
>positive) suggestions (sorry, none of which is technical):
>
>(1) From taking a very quick look at your drafts, it may be helpful to 
>have three sections at the top of the drafts that answer these 3 
>questions (before you describe the new protocols):
>   i) What is the problem that the draft is solving?
>   ii) Why the problem cannot be cleanly solved with existing 
>protocols/technology (which would normally be much cheaper than 
>designing a new protocol)?
>   iii) How does the new protocol/technology solves the problem?
>
>I.e. I think that you need to first convince the community that there 
>is a problem to be solved, before they will invest their time looking 
>at a solution.

Also, I think the Introduction section of the draft should answer (at least on a high-level) the 3 questions above, so that people don¹t have to read through the draft just to figure out the answers.

Regards,

Christer