[Stackevo] IP Stack Evolution Program Review

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

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