[Bloat] Fwd: Result of Consultation on ART/TSV Area Reorganization

[Dave Taht]

transport area and congestion control... ceases to exist as a separate
wg in the ietf.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:09 PM
Subject: Result of Consultation on ART/TSV Area Reorganization
To: <ietf at ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>, Working
Group Chairs <wgchairs at ietf.org>


Two weeks ago, the IESG proposed [1] a merger of parts of the TSV and
ART areas into a new area, and invited community comment.


After consideration of that feedback, the IESG has decided to proceed
with the reorganization with a few tweaks, effective before IETF 119,
and will shortly transmit additional requests to the NomCom.


Briefly, the purposes of this initiative are to (1) eliminate one
position where recruiting is difficult, (2) maintain at least two ADs
for each area except GEN, and (3) avoid increasing the size of the
IESG.


== Summary of the Plan ==


The new area will be named “Web and Internet Transport” (WIT). It will
consist of AVTCORE, CDNI, CCWG, CORE, HTTPAPI, HTTPBIS, MASQUE, MOQ,
NFSV4, QUIC, RTCWEB, TAPS, TCPM, TSVAREA (to be renamed), TSVWG (to be
renamed), and WEBTRANS.


The transport area (TSV) will cease to exist. ALTO and IPPM will move
to OPS. DTN will move to INT. SCIM and TIGRESS will move to SEC [2].
All other working groups will remain in their current area, and ART
will continue to have two ADs.


Future NomComs will be asked to ensure that at least one WIT AD has
expertise in HTTP and related topics, while at least one AD has
expertise in traditional transport-layer topics. Obviously, a
candidate may have expertise in both, and the precise relationship
between the two ADs will be resolved by each pair. Two distinct skill
sets are a model successfully used in the Ops and Management area.


The Transport Area Review Team (TSVART) would not change its purpose,
scope, or operations, but will be renamed, given that there is no more
transport area. One WIT AD would have primary responsibility for
managing this team. The HTTP Directorate would also remain as-is and
would be overseen by the other WIT AD. There are no changes to the
ARTART at this time.


== Next steps ==


In response to feedback, the IESG is deferring the decision of which
ART AD moves to WIT until the new IESG convenes at IETF 119, although
Francesca Palombini remains willing to move. As a result, the ART AD
job descriptions are not changing at this time.


However, the IESG will revise its request to the NomCom to not fill
the TSV AD position currently occupied by Martin Duke. Furthermore,
one of the two open ART positions will change from a two-year to a
one-year term to stagger the positions going forward.


== Summary of feedback ==


This section attempts to categorize the feedback received in response
to [1], with brief responses where appropriate.


= High-order bits =


Web and Transport are a bad fit: Touch, Nottingham

Web and Transport are a good fit: Pauly, Pardue, Baryun, Huitema


IESG: After considering some alternatives, we came to the conclusion
that Web and Transport were a good fit for the reasons the supporters
describe.


AD Partnering is not important: Nottingham

AD Partnering is important: Kuhlewind, Baryun


IESG: The current ADs believe having a partner is important. It is
certainly possible to have ad hoc partnerships, but we believe
habitual relationships decrease the cognitive load of the job.
Furthermore, the Ops/Management area is an example of this arrangement
working.


This is good overall: Pauly, Blanchet, Swett, Schinazi, Aboba, Black,
Zhou, Bishop, Schwartz


IESG: Thanks for the feedback!


This is fine, but we should think much bigger: S. Farrell, Richardson, Carpenter


IESG: This does not preclude further work on fundamental changes to
the IESG, though that work will take longer. Moreover, it is
reasonable to try incremental changes to solve problems before trying
sweeping ones.


This will waste time and move in the wrong direction: Moore


IESG: We do not believe this is actionable except as a comment
opposing this reorganization.


Integrate with IEEE 802.11 better: Taht

Transfer groups to the W3C: Wood

Remove congestion control as a core competency: Eckert


IESG: We are not considering changes to our relationship with external
SDOs at this time. Furthermore, we believe TCP, QUIC, HTTP, and other
protocols in this area are core competencies of the IETF.


This change is too disruptive right now, and we should think much
bigger: Klensin, and a private responder

It’s too late to start in the 2023-24 cycle: Salz, Hardie


IESG: While this is a reasonable concern, we have been in contact with
the active NomCom chair, with full knowledge of the IETF Chair
opening, and believe our course of action is feasible. Indeed, IETF
chair vacancies are common occurrences.


Look at bluesheets to do area groupings: Gondwana


IESG: This would be an interesting exercise, but we will not block on
someone volunteering to do it. Attendance overlaps are only one
consideration for area assignments.


= Low order bits =


Don’t have a strict line between transport and web: Pauly


IESG: The exact relationship between the WIT ADs will be determined by
each pair, depending on their skills and preferences. The role of this
reorganization is to have clear requests to the NomCom for the
collective skill set of the ADs.


DTN should be in INT: Blanchet

DTN should be in RTG: Touch


IESG: In our view, the case for each area has similar strength, but
INT has more capacity to take another WG.


Form a OAM/Fault Management/Performance WG: Mirsky


IESG: Chartering new WGs is out of scope for this reorganization, but
you are always welcome to suggest a BOF through the usual process.


There should be a report at IETF 120: Baryun

WGs must consent to being moved: Baryun


IESG: RFC2026 leaves the organization of the details of the standards
work in the IETF to the IESG, and that includes assigning WGs to
areas.  This IESG strongly encourages the future IESG to report at
IETF 120.


Pick the name carefully: Scharf


IESG: We reconsidered the proposals and settled on WIT instead.


Don’t move an ART AD until after the new IESG is seated: Schwartz


IESG: In response to this suggestion, we will defer this decision (see
above). Francesca remains willing to move if her fellow ART ADs agree.


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iydZ0V3emgjhxVitq_2CGEMo5f8/


[2] Roman Danyliw is already Responsible AD for these working groups.




-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos