Hi Sasha, Adrian and Greg, Thanks for the comments. Totally agree that the WG can't decide the creation of a new WG, it really meant to say recommendation of a BoF or to the ADs about creation of a WG.
The following text is from the current charter. RTGWG has been doing dispatch and incubation work, and we want to have the incubation function more clear stated in the charter: Options for handling new work include: - Directing the work to an existing WG (including RTGWG) - Developing a proposal for a BoF. - Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG. This option will primarily be used with fairly mature and/or well-defined efforts. - Careful evaluation, leading to deferring or rejecting work. How about: *Incubating new routing-related technologies by developing and discussing problem statements and requirements documents prior to reaching consensus, which can encourage proponents to request a BoF or recommend the formation of a new working group to the ADs. If the working group agrees to pursue a problem statement or requirements document, it will be added to the group’s milestones.* Thanks, Yingzhen On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 4:19 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
