Re: RRG thoughts (was [Bier] [pim] Q on the congestion awareness of routing protocols)

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Toerless,

I agree we need more interaction between experts, and I will add also we
need interaction with directors.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 3:34 PM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:54:57PM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> > > path exploration? but consider the shadow pricing...
> >
> > Just something semi-formal where we can meet regularly. But first,
> please lets articuulate the problem very clearly. And bring operators in so
> they can confirm the problem that researchers are stating are real problems
> that need solving.
>
> I actually would love to just have a standing forum to better bring
> routing researchers
> together with industrial routing experts.


IMHO, there are: Academic experts, Industry experts, and Research experts,
each engineer_expert has their methods, skills and experiences, some
ietf_participants have the three experience and some don't, however, we
need in IETF to have all to discuss together in all IETF WGs.

Aka: not focussed on a specific issue
> (as Tony's past RRG instance). E.g.: where researcher can ask questions to
> the experts, or propose
> research and ask if/how this is useful to the industry, and where industry
> folks can
> ask for researchers to look into specific issues (i think there are for
> example a lot of
> simulations to investigate behaviors that we'd like to have from the
> undustry).
>

Researchers should be engineering_experts, in IETF we are not Teaching we
are Working like any company that has research workers and research experts.


> Not sure if "Research Group" is the right name for this. I think it would
> be a lot
> closer to the SIG concept (
> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/iesg/specialinterestgroups),
> except that that concept was built and specified around interaction
> between IETF
> and operational considerations of a specific community. Not on bringing
> more researchers
> back to the IETF.
>

Yes IETF groups has separated Research Group (RG) drafts and Working Group
(WG) drafts, but still IETF does not separate participants or
engineering_experts. Is there an IETF_RFC that states that IETF WG
participants are only industry_experts?


> We do have a subset of what i think such an RRG would do in rtgwg -
> researchers bring ideas -
> and then they most often figure out that they can only proceed when they
> throw themselves
> fully into the RFC process (which most of them cannot/wantnot do). And
> from what i
> understand even this is not always welcome by rtgwg, because it does take
> a significant
> amount of time that folks feel should better be spent on actual WG
> deliverables.
>
> Of course, i am mostly interested in the ietf->research direction, e.g.:
> where the IETF
> community can better raise the questions of interest to be researched
> because the way i
> see it, there is no forum whatsover for this part.
>

All companies need excellent planning of products that need
engineering_research_experts, so there is a need for working with all
experts together with engineering_directions, not industry direction, not
academic direction and not research direction.

AB