Area Structure and Participant Recruitment RAI Area Open Meeting

Participant Recruitment (1) Mentoring program for editors –Experienced editor works with more inexperienced editors –Problems We throw inexperience editors on tough problems that are not aligned with their interests The experienced editor does not usually put enough efforts because the problem is overwhelming The inexperienced editor gets frustrated because nothing gets done –Potential improvements Keep new editors focused on problems they are engaged with or at least interested in

Participant Recruitment (2) Mentoring program for chairs –Experienced chair gets a more inexperienced co-chair Design Team leaders –A good way to get experience managing a mini charter –Offloads WG chairs Get secretaries for most WGs –A good way to get experience on how things work –Offloads WG chairs

Area Structure Problems and Requirements (1) Long discussions on what goes where –E.g., requirements for security mechanisms are done in SIP or in SIPPING? –WGs must have a clear scope Inefficient inter-WG transactions –E.g., we have discussed this extensively in SIPPING and now I need to discuss it again in SIP –WGs must be scoped so that most work items can be completed within the WG –Necessary inter-WG transactions are clearly documented

Area Structure Problems and Requirements (2) Difficult to have focused efforts within large WGs –E.g., people following the WG need to pay attention to too many things –Depending on their size, focused efforts are chartered as a WG or as a design team Participants in large WGs have different interests and priorities –E.g., new innovative stuff vs. deployment problems with old stuff –HOLB –WGs need to be chartered so that their participants' interests and priorities are aligned

Area Structure Problems and Requirements (3) As time goes by, long-lived WGs tend to produce less relevant work –There have been discussions on whether long-lived WGs should exist at all –Things like protocol maintenance can be done in long-lived WGs –Long-lived WGs are allowed or encouraged to go dormant when needed –WGs that are not intended to be long-lived close down when they complete their charters

Area Structure Problems and Requirements (4) ADs may become bottlenecks –New ways for delegating certain tasks needed

Area Structure Straw-man Proposal (1) Sigtran and IPTEL close down The transport aspects of AVT moves to a new WG in the Transport area –The media aspects remain in RAI

ECRIT GEOPRIV SIP SIPPING MMUSIC AVT SPEECHSC MEDIACTRL ENUM DRINKS SPEERMINT Decentralized Centralized NetworkUser BLISS SIMPLE P2PSIP XCON

Area Structure Straw-man Proposal (2) WGs are grouped in clusters –Attendees with common interests Each cluster has a cluster manager –Empowered like a WG chair –Coordinates inter-cluster activities E.g., WGLCs and publication requests WGs in the clusters can create SIP extensions –RFC 3427 restriction is lifted

ECRIT GEOPRIV SIP SIPPING MMUSIC AVT SPEECHSC MEDIACTRL ENUM DRINKS SPEERMINT Decentralized Centralized NetworkUser BLISS SIMPLE P2PSIP XCON User Peering Media Control Media Description Decentralized

Area Structure Straw-man Proposal (3) SIP, SIPPING are restructured as follows SIPCORE –Maintenance of the core SIP specs DISPATCHER –Decides what to do with new proposals that do not fall within existing clusters –BoF creation –Cluster creation

ECRIT GEOPRIV SIPCORE DISPATCHER MMUSIC AVT SPEECHSC MEDIACTRL ENUM DRINKS SPEERMINT Decentralized Centralized NetworkUser BLISS SIMPLE P2PSIP XCON User Peering Media Control Media Description Decentralized Core

Some Advantages AD less likely to become a bottleneck –WGs within clusters are more independent No HOLB within clusters –Participants’ interests are aligned Inter WG transactions are minimized –WGs can create their own extensions Avoids large WGs