Adrian hi! Lots of thanks for reminding me (and others) about the need to react o the proposed re-chartering of the RTGWG.
I must admit that I do not understand how "Incubation of routing-related new technologies, particularly focusing on problem statements" would be mapped to the IETF process. Specifically, what is supposed to be the WG deliverable of incubation for this or that new routing-related technology? Sending a problem statement draft to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC? Something else? My 2c, Sasha From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 1:47 AM To: rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Charter updates [Sorry for breaking the threading, but I lost the original email] Hi chairs, Thanks for circulating the charter update proposal. I think it is a big shame that no one has commented on the list so far. I have been trying to psychoanalyse why that might be. It could be that the changes don't seem as big as they actually are because (maybe) people already thought that was covered in the charter - thus, it is like a minor editorial erratum. After all, there has not been so much push-back in recent years about "incubating" new routing work through discussion of I-Ds and holding "mini-BoF" sessions in WG meetings. It seems to me (did I get this right) that the change of substance is the addition of one bullet paragraph to read: * Incubation of routing-related new technologies, particularly focusing on problem statements, prior to achieving consensus for creating a new working group. This includes, but not limited to, the following topics: satellite routing, routing in data centers, and networking for AI clusters. I am happy with the concept of providing an initial discussion venue for such topics, but: - What does "incubation" mean in practice? I think this needs to be spelled out in the charter text because, as it stands, it is unclear where you would draw the line. Why would this not result in tens of documents being pushed to RFC on the topic of (for example) wet-string routing? How would the WG handle requests to discuss 12 new I-Ds on a new topic at an IETF? How would the WG protect the other chartered work of the working group against being swamped? I'd suggest that "particularly focusing on problem statements" be made more limiting such as, "by developing and discussing problem statement and requirements documents", and that "prior to achieving consensus" be end-limited as "prior to determining whether there is consensus or not for the creation of a new working group." - The text "This includes, but is not limited to" is, I think intended to say "The initial list of candidate topics is," with an addition of "other topics may be added after discussion with the WG chairs". But... o What does this initial list actually add? o Will you track those other topics? How do the chairs decide? What happens when an idea won't go away, or keeps coming back? Since we just had the perceptive/adaptive routing side meeting, and since we have the AIDC mailing list, would you imagine that the day after rechartering all of that work would immediately move into RTGWG? Cheers, Adrian Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
