Re: [Stackevo] IP Stack Evolution Program Review

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

Thinking about your questions...

I don't recall discussion of an ACCORD BoF.  What is it?  Has it been
approved?

--aaron

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:14 AM, 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
>
>