Procrastinators (like me) are saved from writing more words, as others may be the first to formulate it more clearly. Thank you, Adrian! I was trying to put my finger on that "consensus determination of the new WG formation" as it seems not to be within the powers of a WG. I like the latter formulation proposed by Adrian, but I can live with the former, too. Alternatively, it could be "consensus to encourage the proponents to use IETF processes and procedures to advance the formation of a new working group."
Regards, Greg On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:34 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > I agree that this is a whole lot better. Thanks. > > > > I think, however, that RTGWG doesn’t determine consensus (or not) for the > creation of a working group. Working groups are created by ADs according to > arcane science. > > We could have “consensus to ask the ADs to form a new working group” and > we might have “consensus to encourage the proponents to request a BoF to > attempt to form a new working group.” > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > > *From:* Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> > *Sent:* 12 November 2024 06:31 > *To:* Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [rtgwg] Re: Charter updates > > > > Yingzhen and all, > > From my POV the latest proposed text: > > *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. If the > working group agrees to pursue a problem statement or requirements > document, it will be added to the group's milestones* > > > > disambiguates (to the degree possible😊) “incubation” and links it to the > IETF process in a reasonable way. > > > > I support adding this text to the new Charter. > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > *From:* Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 12, 2024 1:04 AM > *To:* adr...@olddog.co.uk > *Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [rtgwg] Re: Charter updates > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > Sorry for the late reply. Please see my answers below inline. > > > > Thanks, > > Yingzhen > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 3:38 AM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > Hey, Yingzhen. > > [snip] > > 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. > > > > [AF] This is all good stuff, and I don’t see anything I disagree with > substantially. > > But… :-) > > The way to think about charter text is not just about how to guide the > current (wise and competent) chairs, but how to guide the future (evil or > dumb) chairs, and how to guide the highly-excitable and inventive WG > participants. > > So, probably, we just need to cook some words that not rely on a single > key word, but sets the scope and process and priority. > > > > [Yingzhen]: thanks for this "But". This is what we need. > > I agree with you that the charter of a WG should be specific, but not so > specific that it may go out of date in a week of recharter. > > · 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? > > [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. > > > > [AF] If you are saying that further topics will be added to the charter > before they can be discussed (I don’t think you are saying that) then > having the list would be fine. > > But otherwise, I think you are just making a list that will be out of date > by the end of the week. > > So, how about, “A list of topics currently under consideration by the WG > for incubation will be maintained on the WG Wiki page”? > > > > [Yingzhen]: A new topic may pop up in RTGWG any time, so it's not possible > for us to make a complete list of topics that the WG will be working on. > How about if the WG agrees to work on the problem statement of a topic, for > example the problem statement of wet-string routing, we will add this to > the milestones of the WG. > > How about the following text for charter update: > > *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. If the > working group agrees to pursue a problem statement or requirements > document, it will be added to the group's milestones.* > > 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. > > > > [AF] Right. Two things should be clear. > > 1. New topics can be spun up in the RTG Area without “incubating” them > in RTGWG. Thus, side meetings, I-Ds, BoFs, WG formation do not need to use > RTGWG. > > 2. RTGWG is available as **an** option for airing new topics. > > However, in this particular case, when stuff has advanced on several > fronts, I think there is a search for coordination advice…. > - If perceptive/adaptive routing is already under RTGWG incubation, it > would be helpful to know > > - If it is an option for the perceptive/adaptive routing proponents to > incubate in RTGWG, then they need to self-organise to that end > > - If the AIDC list is the place to self-organise for perceptive/adaptive > routing, this is **highly** non-obvious from the name of the list :-) > > > > [Yingzhen]: There are already drafts in RTGWG about different aspects of > networking technologies in data centers for LLM training. I'm not sure > whether you consider them related to perceptive/adaptive routing. These > drafts are still at early stages and need further work. > > As for the AIDC mailing list, it was created to facilitate discussions > related to the AIDC side meetings, where we discuss new technologies in DCs > for AI. I thought the name was obvious, and it seems I'm mistaken. :) > > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
