Hi Joel, The requirements meant to be high level function requirements, e.g. covering certain use cases, instead of protocol extension requirements. Should this be considered as part of the problem statement? But I agree with your point of deferring detail protocol requirements to working groups such as IGR, LSR. Any suggestions to make this clearer?
On the other hand, when the WG decides to work on the problem statement and requirements document, we need to add them to the milestones, so we should have a clear understanding of the scope of the requirements document. A new topic may have only a problem statement document. Thanks, Yingzhen On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 7:12 AM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > I wonder if the dispatch and incubation function would be clearer if RTGWG > allowed for work on problem statements, but explicitly deferred > requirements development to wherever the work is dispatched? If the > expertise is e.g. in IDR, SPRING, LSR, it seems they should do the > requirements development. > > Yours, > > Joel > On 11/12/2024 7:44 AM, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
