RUCUS BOF IETF-71 IETF Exploratory Groups Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation Laksminath Dondeti Qualcomm, Inc. March 10, 2008 Philadelphia, PA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Whos who in the IETF Zoo? Geoff Huston Executive Director, Internet Architecture Board.
Advertisements

A Proposal to Improve IETF Productivity Geoff Huston Marshall Rose draft-huston-ietf-pact-00 October 2002.
IETF Bridge WG Transition to IEEE WG Dave Harrington Dan Romascanu This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create.
STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update?
Timeliness, Effectiveness, Quality and the IETF Aaron Falk
Russ Housley IETF Chair 23 July 2012 Introduction to the IETF Standards Process.
Evolutionizing the IETF Status and plans Harald Alvestrand.
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ECRIT) Marc Linsner Roger Marshall IETF 92 - Dallas March 24, 2015.
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
SIP working group status Keith Drage, Dean Willis.
Atlanta Public Schools Project Management Framework Proposed to the Atlanta Board of Education to Complete AdvancED/SACS “Required Actions” January 24,
Web Elucidation of Internet Related Developments WG 47th IETF - Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Update on the Internet Research Task Force Aaron Falk IRTF Chair IETF-72 – Dublin.
Framework for Performance Metric Development draft-morton-perf-metrics-framework-01.txt Alan Clark IETF 70 PMOL WG.
Getting Involved in the Research Data Alliance Stefanie Kethers
Doc: Submission September 2003 Dorothy Stanley (Agere Systems) IETF Liaison Report September 2003 Dorothy Stanley – Agere Systems IEEE.
A Comprehensive Approach to Quality (COACH) IETF 57 Vienna, Austria Monday, July 14, :00 – 15:00
Submission February 2014 Slide 1 IEEE 802 Response to FDIS comments on IEEE 802.1AR 20 March 2014 Authors: NameCompanyPhone .
IETF Trade WG Adelaide, South Australia 29 March 2000 Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
DIME WG IETF 82 Dime WG Agenda & Status THURSDAY, November 17, 2011 Jouni Korhonen & Lionel Morand.
Mdnsext BoF Chairs: Tim Chown, Thomas Narten IETF85 Atlanta 6 th November, 2012.
MPTCP – MULTIPATH TCP Interim meeting #3 20 th October 2011 audio Yoshifumi Nishida Philip Eardley.
IETF – ECRIT Emergency Context Resolution using Internet Technologies ESW 5 – Vienna October 2008 Marc Linsner.
1 Yet Another Mail Working Group IETF 81 July 26, 2011.
IETF #82 DRINKS WG Meeting Taipei, Taiwan Fri, Nov 18 th
v6ops, Ole Trøan
Hannes Tschofenig, Blaine Cook. 6/4/2016 IETF #77, SAAG 2 The Problem.
November 2010IETF TRILL WG1 TRILL Working Group TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links Mailing list: Tools site:
1 IETF Status at IETF 79 Russ Housley IETF Chair.
PAWS Protocol to Access White Space DB IETF 81 Gabor Bajko, Brian Rosen.
NEWTRK WG Paris, August 5, Agenda 0 – agenda bashing – 10m 1 - introduction & status - chair- 10m discussion on the issues with ISD proposal.
IETF Problem Statement Discussion of Draft at IETF 56 Elwyn Davies Nortel Networks: Friday, 21 March.
IPR WG Agenda, Vancouver December Agenda 0900: Administrativia 0910: Status of WG documents 0915: Issues raised so far at Last Call 0945: Instructions.
RADEXT WG IETF 91 Rechartering. Why? Current charter doesn’t allow us to take on new work that is waiting in the queue Has an anachronistic Diameter entanglement.
ROLL Working Group Meeting IETF-81, Quebec City July 2011 Online Agenda and Slides at: bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi Co-chairs:
Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP) BOF Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Yunfei Zhang China Mobile IETF76, Hiroshima, Japan 13:00~15:00 THURSDAY, Nov 12,
ICOS BOF EAP Applicability Bernard Aboba IETF 62, Minneapolis, MN.
DetNet WG 1 ST Meeting Chairs: Lou Berger Pat Thaler Secretary: Jouni Korhonen.
Who’s watching your network The IETF standards process and OpenPGP Jon Callas 8 October 1998.
PAWS Protocol to Access White Space DB IETF 83, Paris Gabor Bajko, Brian Rosen.
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 7 January, 2016 Slide 1 Process and Tools (PROTO) Team General Area Meeting IETF59, Seoul, Korea -- March 2004
Dissuasion, Working Group Scope and Deliverables Lou Berger Pat Thaler
Proposals for a New IETF Standards Track draft-ietf-newtrk-proposals-00.txt David Black Brian Carpenter IETF 60.
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies BOF (ecrit) Jon Peterson, Hannes Tschofenig BOF Chairs.
1 MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile ITU-T - IETF Joint Working Team Dave Ward, Malcolm Betts, ed. April 16, 2008.
CAPWAP Working Group MIB documents IETF 65 David T. Perkins.
Joint CCAMP, L2VPN, MPLS & PWE3 meeting on MPLS-TP Dublin
Design Guidelines Thursday July 26, 2007 Bernard Aboba IETF 69 Chicago, IL.
Moving towards an IRS WG Charter Ross Callon IETF 85, Atlanta.
7 March 2005IETF-62 Applications Area Open Meeting Jabber Room: Ted Hardie Scott Hollenbeck.
Moving Forward on Working Group Snapshot IETF 59 NEWTRK Spencer Dawkins draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt.
1 An RFC Stream for the IRTF Wednesday, 12 March 2008 Scalable Adaptive Multicast RG.
EDU BOF IESG Plenary – IETF57, Vienna Margaret Wasserman
MODERN BoF Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, and Registering telephone Numbers IETF 92.
Reducing Unwanted Communications in SIP (RUCUS) BOF Hannes Tschofenig Francois Audet.
INCident Handling BOF (INCH) Thursday, March IETF 53.
RSE & RSOC Report IETF 88 Vancouver, BC, Canada. RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) IAB Members –Joel Halpern (Lead) –Bernard Aboba Non-IAB Members.
NETWORK-BASED MOBILITY EXTENSIONS WG (NETEXT) July 28 th, 2011 IETF81 1.
Dhc WG 3/2/2004, IETF 59, Seoul. 3/2/2004dhc WG - IETF 59, Seoul2 Agenda Administrivia, Agenda bashing Ralph Droms 05 minutes DHCP Option for Proxy Server.
EAP WG EAP Key Management Framework Draft-ietf-eap-keying-05.txt Bernard Aboba Microsoft IETF 62, Minneapolis, MN.
L1VPN Working Group Scope
TRILL Working Group TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
Online Agenda and Slides at:
Foundations of Planning
IETF68 Mini-BOF MIB-Doctor-Sponsored MIB Document Templates
IETF status of XML Security
Global Grid Forum (GGF) Orientation
IETF Liaison Report January 2004 Dorothy Stanley – Agere Systems
IETF-104 (Prague) DHC WG Next steps
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) Working Group Status
Presentation transcript:

RUCUS BOF IETF-71 IETF Exploratory Groups Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation Laksminath Dondeti Qualcomm, Inc. March 10, 2008 Philadelphia, PA

What are Exploratory Groups? An RFC 3933 experiment, defined in RFC 5111 Experiment runs until July 2009 IESG may approve as many as 3 EGs. Intermediate step between a BOF and a WG Focused on completion of pre-requisites for WG formation May be created as the first step to WG formation or an intermediate step between an initial BOF and WG creation. Formation of an EG after a second BOF not recommended. Does not alter Working Group formation guidelines or the Internet Standards Process.

When To Consider an EG? Demonstrated relevance and interest to the IETF and Internet community. One or more WG formation criteria outlined in RFC 2418 Section 2.1 have not yet been met: Need for good understanding of existing work Need to improve clarity or achievability of goals Need to resolve overlap with existing WGs or standards bodies Need for clarity on status Formal recognition of the effort. Mechanism to track progress toward WG creation. Public IAB and IESG feedback on proposed charter, WG formation criteria.

Exploratory Group Milestones EGs have a short life-time with limited opportunities for milestone extension. Recommended initial charter: 6 (default) – 12 months Extensions beyond another 6 months not recommended. Recommended “Basic Milestones” Proposed WG Charter. Document demonstrating fulfillment of the WG formation criteria described in RFC 2418 Section 2.1. Optional milestones Problem statement document. Review of the literature or current practices. Note: should not put basic milestones at risk! Forbidden Milestones relating to development of a standards track protocol specification.

Exploratory Groups handled identically to Working Groups No additional burden imposed on IETF Secretariat. Exploratory Group names should include “EG” within the name (example: EXAMPLEEG). Operating rules (openness, meeting requirements, etc.) identical to WGs. Review of EG documents utilizes same tracking tools and processes (including PROTO sheparding). Process for formation of an Exploratory Group identical to that of a WG Review by the IAB and IESG Announcement of potential EG Request for review by the IETF community Exploratory Group Mgmt

Success Metrics Progress on basic milestones Completion within the time frame specified in the initial EG charter. Positive feedback from the IESG, IAB and IETF community. Mailing list activity Evidence of continued engagement. WG formation!

Tips for a Successful EG Focus on basic milestones Eyes on the prize: WG formation. Plan for completion of basic milestones within the initial 6-12 month time frame. Only add optional milestones if they won’t delay progress on basic milestones. Maintain high energy level Exploratory Groups are a sprint, not a marathon! Do not assume that the IESG will extend basic milestones!

Feedback?