Subject: [PMOL] What is a Directorate?

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:31:47 +0200

The discussions in Chicago and on the list show that there is a
consistent sense of the community that the IETF should do something to
provide a framework for performance metrics definition at other layers
than IP. Many participants in the discussion expressed a preference for
a Working Group format. 

In order to make sure that we have a full picture of all the options at
hand I would suggest that we look also at the cross-area directorate
alternative and understand what this option means and why it was
suggested as a starting point of the discussion. 

Directorates are defined in RFC 2418:

   In many areas, the Area Directors have formed an advisory group or
   directorate.  These comprise experienced members of the IETF and the
   technical community represented by the area.  The specific name and
   the details of the role for each group differ from area to area, but
   the primary intent is that these groups assist the Area Director(s),
   e.g., with the review of specifications produced in the area.

The Area Directors often employ directorates and review teams for
assistance in tasks such as 

- Document reviews as a part of their AD or IESG reviews, or to solicit
architectural input when the document is in its early stages. 
- Discussion forum to talk about topics associated with a particular
technology. 
- Help in forming an opinion about a rechartering or WG approval
decision. 
- Tracking discussion and efforts related to a particular topic. 

These teams can be created at the request of the Area Directors.
Typically both ADs for an area decide to create a team, but sometimes
the teams are more focused on one AD's topics, or even serve multiple
areas. The teams comprise experienced members of the IETF and the
technical community. The ADs are responsible for the selection of the
team members. 

For efficient management, the teams typically need a chair. This could
be one of the ADs or one of the team members. Experience tells us that
review teams need to have an active person responsible for the
assignment and tracking of review tasks. The nature of the team
determines how large it can be. Most directorates are of size that can
easily meet for dinner at an IETF, while review teams can have a large
pool of reviewers. It is the AD's task to ensure that the membership of
the team is up to date and active. It is typically easy to get members
and have them perform initial work, but sometimes some members drop out
of active work in the directorate, or even the entire directorate grows
old and tired. 

The current list of directorates and review teams can be found from
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/directorates.html. Example directorate
charter and description can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/mobdir.html. 

When we discussed in the IESG how to support APM (now PMOL) it was the
idea of a cross-area directorate that came up first. The directorate
would be composed of individuals with experience in the field of
performance metrics definition, review and implementation at various
layers, who can volunteer to dedicate a slice of their time for this
activity. The directorate would be chartered for the following tasks: 

- define a set of criteria and procedures to engage in IETF performance
metrics definition at other layers than IP
- support and advice working groups in the IETF that engage in work on
performance metrics definition - including advice on chartering and
early architectural advice
- coordinate between work items in the IETF and in other SDO in order to
identify and avoid duplication of efforts
- review documents that define performance metrics that have reached
IESG review phases

As you can see the directorate charter is not significantly different
than the possible charter of a PMOL WG. The difference is that a Working
Group would be specifically chartered with the creation of the framework
document for criteria and procedures and would possibly take a number of
performance metrics documents as work items. The directorate option
clearly favors doing all performance metrics definition in the
respective technology working groups and tries to encourage and
accelerate this process which did not work very well lately by providing
a framework and expert advice. 

Dan

_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:59:49 -0600

Dan,

Thanks for this additional perspective.  My concern with the Directorate
is purely the requirement for agenda time to fully hash out this type of
work in other WG's.  Their agenda's and charter's are already very full
in some cases, so the drafts would not receive the attention or priority
to supersede protocol enhancements or bug fixes.

Correct me if I am wrong, this may only be my perception.

--Daryl

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:00:14 +0200

You may be correct, especially taking into account your own experience
with the sip-performance metrics draft. However here is a concern on the
other side of the argument that was expressed by some of the IAB members
who participated in the BOF. Would not a permanent Working Group lower
the threshold of approval of new work and encourage the apparition of a
number of RFCs without immediate practical applicability? The point is
that whatever format this work will take we should be careful to
establish firm criteria to start new work, that include starting new
work only in coordination or even only at the request of the working
group that is responsible upon the technology or protocol to be
measured. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:00 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [PMOL] What is a Directorate?
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Thanks for this additional perspective.  My concern with the 
> Directorate is purely the requirement for agenda time to 
> fully hash out this type of work in other WG's.  Their 
> agenda's and charter's are already very full in some cases, 
> so the drafts would not receive the attention or priority to 
> supersede protocol enhancements or bug fixes.
>

---

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:51:42 -0600

I find 100% validity in the concern, and it should be carefully
considered prior to the establishment of any working group...including
this one.

In many ways, I think it is a catch 22.  There are risks and advantages
to both sides.  I think I would then spend time investigating the
potential scope of work, and then validating it's need in the industry.
Perhaps then, we can establish better perspective on what to do;
however, how long will that take?!

Perhaps another option would be to immediately establish a Directorate,
while further investigation occurs to determine if a WG is warranted.

--Daryl

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:09:34 -0400

At 10:00 AM 8/7/2007, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>number of RFCs without immediate practical applicability?

This is a valid point of concern for any WG, but we should recognize
that the performance community is a tough audience, at least that's
my IETF experience.

>  ...The point is

I too was worried that additional formalized performance work
might prompt an onslaught of proposals. So, the WG description in the
BOF proposal anticipated this problem and dealt with it head-on:

"...The WG would partner with a specific protocol development WG whenever
possible, to take advantage of willing experts and ensure that the metrics
developed are both appropriate and relevant. Last, the WG would create a
BCP document that would provide guidance for development of IETF APM
metrics documents, including the requirement to include relevant protocol
experts in the development.  The BCP may also define the process to
adopt new work in the APM WG, where a unique feature could be that proposals
would be vetted in the relevant protocol WG before reaching the APM WG.
The APM WG would avoid overlap with existing SDOs, and seek IESG
approval for each new Metric RFC before the WG spends any resources
on it."

I've since learned that the memo we called a "BCP" may be more
appropriately categorized as a Framework for Performance Metrics
Development. In any case, I think we've anticipated this problem.

Al