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…
oWhat does this initial list actually add?
oWill 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 tortgwg-le...@ietf.org
