Hi Hesham, It depends on the consensus of the problem scope. If the solution turns out to be an extension to an existing WG, it will be sent to the WG of that protocol. If from the problem statement we can see the topic is too big for any existing WG to pick up, we'd suggest the creation of a new working group, which is in RTGWG's current charter.
Thanks, Yingzhen On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 4:34 PM Hesham ElBakoury <helbako...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
