Re: [Stackevo] IP Stack Evolution Program Review

Hi, Aaron,

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thinking about your questions...
>
> I don't recall discussion of an ACCORD BoF.  What is it?  Has it been
> approved?
>

I'm not the smart guy about this, but I can point out that the ACCORD BOF
description is in http://tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki, and the BOF request
cutoff isn't until this coming Friday, so nothing has been approved yet ...

Spencer, as AD who is holding the bag on ACCORD.

> --aaron
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
>
>> Greetings, all,
>>
>> The IAB is now reviewing all its programs once per meeting cycle, to
>> allow the whole Board to have visibility into the working of the programs,
>> to compare notes across programs, to review the membership of the Programs
>> to see if the right people are involved, and to see what works (and what
>> doesn't) in order to help things run more smoothly.
>>
>> The IAB will review the IP Stack Evolution program at its telechat on
>> Wednesday 2 March 2016, and I'm preparing my presentation for this review
>> now. Here's what I think I'm going to say:
>>
>>
>> (1) We've done a lot since we were "rebooted" following the May 2014 IAB
>> retreat in Cancun, but much of this happens through the initial
>> coordination of smaller groups of individual Program members, as opposed to
>> official actions of the Program. Much of this involves workshop / BarBoF /
>> BOF organization:
>>
>>   - SEMI workshop in Zurich in January 2015, which led to:
>>   - SPUD non-WG BoF in Dallas in March 2015
>>   - HOPS BarBoF in Dallas in March 2015, and the HOPSRG/MAPRG proposed RG
>> afterward
>>   - MaRNEW workshop in Atlanta in September 2015
>>
>>   - IOTSI workshop in San Jose in March 2016
>>
>>   - SEMI workshop proposed to SIGCOMM 2016; proposal rejected.
>>   - ACCORD non-WG BoF proposed for Buenos Aires in April 2016
>>
>> Indeed, I'm not sure we've had a conversation on the list that didn't
>> lead to some of us going off and proposing a workshop of BoF somewhere.
>> IOTSI came out of discussions about polishing up Point 5 on our program
>> description, which *still* reads, in part: "[Erik and Ralph to provide text
>> to flesh this out]".
>>
>> (2) We have sent no correspondence, and no statements up to the IAB for
>> approval, though we've discussed the possibility of doing so. Discussion on
>> proposed communication on traffic characterization, still pending, led to
>> another BoF proposal (ACCORD).
>>
>> (3) We have no official program documents, and no current plans for any.
>> There is one document for consideration as a "program work item",
>> draft-trammell-stackevo-explicit-coop, but it's not clear where the
>> boundary between "architecture" and "engineering" is here.
>>
>> (4) We have no regular program meetings outside IETF meetings. It's not
>> clear whether we should.
>>
>> (5) The membership is largely active in areas of interest to the program.
>>
>>
>> First, I'd like to ask the program whether there's anything I'm missing
>> here that should be included in the review.
>>
>> Second, I'd like to ask the membership if there's anything less (or more)
>> we should be doing: what would you like to see out of the program as
>> members?
>>
>> Thanks, cheers,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stackevo mailing list
>> Stackevo@iab.org
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> Stackevo@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
>
>