Subject: [Status] STATUS BOF

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 22:20:51 +0200

Hi,

To better understand the scope of this BOF I took a look at the
RFC5434 and found those guidelines:

4)   Have substantive mailing list discussion.  It is not enough for a
      handful of people to assert that they want a BOF; there needs to
      be broader community interest.  A public mailing list allows ADs
      (and others) to gauge how much interest there really is on a topic
      area, as well as gauge how well the problem statement has been
      scoped, etc.  At this phase of the BOF preparation, the emphasis
      should be on getting agreement on the problem statement;
      discussions about specific solutions tend to be distracting and
      unhelpful.

      Timeline: this step can easily take 1 month or longer; hence,
      begin 2.5 months before the IETF meeting.

   5) Submit a formal request to have a BOF.

Can BOF chairs point us to archives of pre-BOF "substantive mailing
list discussion" ?

Cheers,
R,.

---

From: Hannes Gredler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:48:22 +0200

robert,

i had a look at the "introduction" section of RFC 5434 and
could not find anything offending.

--
   This document provides suggestions on how to host a successful BOF at
   an IETF meeting.  It is hoped that by documenting the methodologies
   that have proven successful, as well as listing some pitfalls, BOF
   organizers will improve their chances of hosting a BOF with a
   positive outcome.

   There are many reasons for hosting a BOF.  Some BOFs are not intended
   to result in the formation of a Working Group (WG).  For example, a
   BOF might be a one-shot presentation on a particular issue, in order
   to provide information to the IETF Community.  Another example might
   be to host an open meeting to discuss specific open issues with a
   document that is not associated with an active WG, but for which
   face-to-face interaction is needed to resolve issues.  In many cases,
   however, the intent is to form a WG.  In those cases, the goal of the
   BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement that:

      - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
        group to attempt solving it.

      - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
        problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).

      - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
        is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
        what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.

      - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
        proposed documents) are the right set.

      - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
        having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
        charter in a timely fashion).

--

all of the above is applicable - 
since 2012, several vendors and their customers have worked together on
dissemination of fixed size "Segment-IDs" and "Labels" by the IGP,
its use-cases and applicability.

Asking for a BOF is a good thing because it carries some of those ideas,
private write-ups and discussion to the daylight of IETF.

i fail to see whats wrong with that;

/hannes

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:51:13 +0200

Hey Hannes,

> could not find anything offending.

I was not claiming RFC5434 contains any thing offending either :)

> its use-cases and applicability.

Hmmm I recall we have had similar discussions in 2002 ! In fact there
are for sure some written records of it.

> private write-ups and discussion to the daylight of IETF.

As you know this work is based on the IGP extensions. Those are
already published in daylight to ISIS and OSPF WG. Likewise some
products and applications will be done in subject specific WGs -
example PCE (also draft is published).

There is going to also be work in IPv6 WGs and maybe in MPLS WG.

> i fail to see whats wrong with that;

Nothing is wrong till the moment that this WG will attempt to block or
derail progress of other parallel work.

Cheers,
R.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:07:43 +0100

> private write-ups and discussion to the daylight of IETF.
The ADs were aware of these discussions and had been planning a mini-bof
prior to receiving a formal BOF request.

The technology is clearly in the scope of the IETF and spans a number
of WGs. It is important that the IETF takes a holistic view of the
space to determine if/how best to work on it and if/how to publish any
necessary RFCs. A non-wg BOF is a commonly used tool to consider
such matters, and that is what is planned for Berlin.

Stewart

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:15:24 +0100

Robert,

> are for sure some written records of it.

Sometimes an idea needs to be born in its own time.

If you have pointers to drafts, perhaps you can post them.
> example PCE (also draft is published).
Which drafts are you referring to, and how is this consistent with
your earlier reference to 2002 work? Are they the same or different?

> derail progress of other parallel work.
Firstly this is not yet a WG, it is an investigation on if/how the IETF
should work on this technology.

Secondly when you get a technology that spans many WGs the IETF
normally investigates how that work should be aligned and co-ordinated
and in some cases moves it to a single place.

- Stewart

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:09:41 +0100

Hi Robert,

Just chipping in...

5434 is "considerations for having a successful BoF" not "considerations for
granting a BoF request".

I *do* think that the likelihood of having a successful BoF would have been
increased by posting more drafts and having more public (and more-public)
discussions prior to meeting in Berlin. That said, there are a few more weeks, a
number of I-ds have been posted, a mailing list exists and no-one is even
slightly too busy to post lots of emails :-) 

We should also consider how we measure "success" for a BoF.  Will success look
like the formation of a working group? Or will it look like a good airing and
debate around the technical topics? Maybe success could be measured by the
extent to which the very existence of the BoF causes I-Ds to be posted and
conversations to be moved into public forums.

Anyway, I think the BoF chairs should be less your target than the ADs. The
chairs are doing us all (ADs and community) a service by trying to place the
whole herd of cats into one box (strangely marked "Property of Prof
Schrödinger"). They didn't request the BoF, and they didn't grant the BoF
request.

Cheers,
Adrian 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Robert Raszuk
> Sent: 01 July 2013 21:21
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Status] STATUS BOF
> 
> Hi,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> status mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status