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
