Hi Yingzhen, In the new text you say: "Incubating new routing-related technologies by developing and discussing problem statements and requirements documents, prior to determining whether there is consensus or not for the creation of a new working group. Initial topics include, but are not limited to, satellite routing, data center routing, and networking for AI clusters."
If a new routing-related technology is proposed and there is consensus to move forward for standardization, will this standardization happen in a new group or the RTGWG will be rechartered to do the standard work? Thanks Hesham On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, 3:15 PM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > Thanks for the feedback. Please see my answers below inline. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 3:47 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > >> [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. >> >> >> > [Yingzhen]: Yes, this is the main change to the charter besides some > editorial changes for clarity. > > 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.” >> >> [Yingzhen]: > The "incubation" means to provide a venue for initial discussion > which RTGWG has been doing already. Ideally we may give a new proposal/work > one or two opportunities to present, and based on the feedback of the > community we'll decide whether to continue. Use your wet-string routing > example, if we really get tens of documents on the topic, and assuming > they're not from the same author, I'd say most likely the community is > interested in the topic. We should help to define the problem scope and > recommend for a BoF before there are tens of documents on this topic. > As for agenda building, we will always put WG documents on higher > priority. Meanwhile we can always make use of interims and side meetings. > I'm actually not too worried about getting too much work. It's way better > than having nothing to work on. > Regarding the charter update, I merged your suggestion. So how about > something like: > Incubating new routing-related technologies by developing and discussing > problem statements and requirements documents, prior to determining whether > there is consensus or not for the creation of a new working group. Initial > topics include, but are not limited to, satellite routing, data center > routing, and networking for AI clusters. > >> >> - >> - 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… >> - What does this initial list actually add? >> - Will you track those other topics? How do the chairs decide? >> What happens when an idea won’t go away, or keeps coming back? >> >> [Yingzhen]: > Are you suggesting we shouldn't include this initial list? The "not > limited to" meant to say we may also work on other topics. We can't predict > the topics that may pop up, and recharter does have some overhead and take > some time. Of course, if there is a topic that the community thinks RTGWG > should work on, we can always recharter to include it. > > 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? >> > [Yingzhen]: > The preceptive/adaptive routing side meeting is actually a good example to > show that efforts will also be made outside of RTGWG to figure out the > problem space and whether there is something that the IETF can work on. > Same for the AIDC side meetings and the mailing list where we also share > the latest technology developments in the industry. > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> Adrian >> > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
