Re: [Stackevo] IP Stack Evolution Program Review

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Brian,

On Feb 16, 2016 06:40, "Brian Trammell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Natasha, all
>
> > On 16 Feb 2016, at 09:16, Natasha Rooney <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Brian!
> >
> > I had an awesome chat with Spencer the other day about the outputs from
MaRNEW and their status. We know of some things which are actively
happening (LURK from the Keyless SSL idea, Zero bit / 1 bit for latency /
bandwidth as an idea which came from MaRNEW and will be discussed at
ACCORD, etc.) but there are a number of items which either aren’t going
anywhere or are not being tracked.
> >
> > As a result I’m going to make a super helpful (and hopefully not super
complicated) table showing all the items suggested at MaRNEW, their status,
where they belong (IETF / GSMA and which WG) and some notes. I’ll try to
not to make it two colourful (maybe just half a my-little-pony).
> >
> > I want to get this done in the week after next (more commonly known as
the week after MWC), but this doesn’t work so well with your timeline, so
I’ll try and get something to you quicker then, and you can choose whether
to use it or not!
>
> Ooh, this'd be great to have! I'm not sure how much detail we'll go into
on MaRNEW during the review though, so don't go to heroic efforts to get it
done before 2.3.
>
> FYI: attached is the first draft of slides I'm planning to show. (The
voiceover for the captionless Gemini launch is "I prefer to think of us as
a highly efficient launchpad for new work, as opposed to a rusty pickup
truck that bits of work fall off of", in reference to the fact that most of
what we do is "oooh let's have a workshop!").
>
> Feedback welcome -- let me know if there's anything I'm missing here (at
this level of detail).

The slides you sent seemed pretty clear, except for the first
bullet/sub-bullet. I spent a bit of time trying to match up the names with
the categories.

If it's important to include the names on the first slide, could I suggest
combining them, so it's one bullet that looks like

3 workshops (names go here),   1 BoF and 1 pending (names go here), etc.

?

Thanks,

Spencer

> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Natasha
> >
> >
> > Natasha Rooney | Technologist, Web and Internet, W3C & IETF | GSMA |
[e-mail] | [phone] | @thisNatasha | Skype:
[e-mail]
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Brian Trammell <[e-mail]> 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
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
> >
> > This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only
and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no
action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
reply to this email or call [phone] and highlight the error.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stackevo mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
>