Thanks Yingzhen. Hesham On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, 4:42 PM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
