On 03/04/13 12:51, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com allegedly
wrote:
[MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with
little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his
email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with
proven technical skills in
changed the subject ... and added a cc to some that might not follow ietf@
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I
rgensen == rgensen Roger writes:
rgensen I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will
rgensen answer in an educational way - Why is congestion control so
rgensen important? And where does it apply? ... :-)
The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport
On 3/4/2013 10:20 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an
educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where
does it apply? ... :-)
Ouch. Because without it (as we learned the hard way in the late 1980s) \
the Internet
Mary:
On 3/4/13 6:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with
little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his
email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with
proven technical skills in another area that also is
Sam:
So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and
demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly
value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the
AD joins the IESG.
We mostly agree. We both agree that strong technical
Sam,
On 3/4/13 6:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part
of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on
the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area
covered. In some cases, this was solved by
Eliot == Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com writes:
Eliot Sam,
Eliot On 3/4/13 6:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Eliot We're here because of the extremely specialized nature of
Eliot transport. PhDs who specialize in it have gotten it wrong.
Eliot One such person drove Van Jacobson into
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
Mary:
On 3/4/13 6:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
[MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with
little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his
email. What some of us have been proposing is that
And, I continue to support Sam's position as well.
To me the question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the
position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise that
his being sought than to leave the position unfilled. Having dealt
with the exact same issue when I was
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes:
Mary And, I continue to support Sam's position as well. To me the
Mary question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the
Mary position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise
Mary that his being
Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
Russ Sam:
So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and
demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not
highly value knowing all the things going on in a specific area
at the time the AD
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between
limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is
more likely to be able to learn about it?
Margaret
On Mar 4, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Mary == Mary
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which
one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious.
It is
On 3/4/2013 1:48 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited
knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to
be able to learn about it?
Carefully considering the tradeoffs and
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that
Hi, Russ,
Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport?
Allison
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Margaret:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control
On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to
want to fix
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the
role has grown
over the years.
Alia
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger
Considering that mainly WG chairs are document shepherds (*), that would
be a good start.
(*) but this is absolutely not a requirement. See
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/document-shepherds.html
Regards, Benoit
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the
role has
Bob Braden wrote:
On 3/4/2013 10:20 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an
educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where
does it apply? ... :-)
Ouch. Because without it (as we learned the hard way in the
On 3/4/2013 3:07 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
There are qualified people in the industry, and that's where most of
the past ADs have come from. In the last few years, it's been
increasingly harder to get them to step forward, because their
employers are reluctant to let them spend the time. I
Mary:
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice
between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat.
Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be
obvious. It is
On Mar 4, 2013, at 19:44, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport
protocols that need to do congestion control. Further, the (current)
split of work means that all of the groups that need congestion
oversight would be
There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I think
is true, but we should consider the possibility. The first is the TSV is too
narrow a field to support an area director and as such should be folded in with
another area. The second is if all of the qualified people
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I
think is true, but we should consider the possibility. The first is the TSV
is too narrow a field to support an area director and as such should be
The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement. If that is really the
problem, we have had areas with more than two ADs.
On Mar 3, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
There are two other
--On Sunday, March 03, 2013 12:50 + Eggert, Lars
l...@netapp.com wrote:
The likely possibility is that many qualified people failed to
get sufficient employer support to be able to volunteer. It's
at least a 50% time commitment.
Yes. And with emphasis on at least. See below.
--On
Hannes,
On 03/03/2013 09:15, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Brian, you are essentially saying that the Nomcom should ignore the
requirements.
I believe we would attract more candidates right from the beginning if we
lower the requirements.
The transport area has historically had a this
Lars,
Let's try that statement parametrised:
*Someone* on the IESG needs to understand X.
I think there are many plausible values of X, certainly including
congestion control. But what do we do when, for some value of X,
there is no such AD?
What I'm getting at is that this line of argument
Hi,
On Mar 3, 2013, at 15:35, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm getting at is that this line of argument doesn't scale.
The only solution I see is to replace it by
Several people on the Y Directorate need to understand X.
only if the Y directorate reviews all IDs
Hi,
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:56, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement.
it isn't. The The IETF process (which the IESG cannot unilaterally change)
requires an AD to manage his or her area, and review all documents going
through the
On 3/3/2013 4:56 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement. If that is really the
problem, we have had areas with more than two ADs.
Finding qualified Transport ADs has been a continuing problem for a
number of years. This year's impasse was inevitable.
Lars,
Do you not have individuals in the directorate that are experts on
congestion control (that aren't document authors) that can review for
technical sanity of the proposal? ISTM that some of the TSV nominees
have broad technical skills, including management that could be quite
useful.
I see three different factors being discussed together.
- whether an AD needs technical expertise across the area
- whether an AD's work hours can be decreased
- what is TSV's problem anyway
The size of the job is mostly orthogonal from the level of technical
expertise required. Most of
Gaving discussed TCP Congestion behavior with the TCP folks, and tried
to understand the issues, it seems to be very hard.
And if the AD is not well-versed in it, there is a serious issue. It
seems to me that unless we restructure the entire way the IESG operates
(maybe a good idea, but a
Eric == Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com writes:
Eric There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither
Eric of which I think is true, but we should consider the
Eric possibility. The first is the TSV is too narrow a field to
Eric support an area director and
On 03/03/13 15:14, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca allegedly
wrote:
To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
(I just want to nit on this: I hope people don't think TSV is just about
congestion.)
IMO congestion control is important and fundamental enough that the
IESG itself needs to have the knowledge. Yes, I'm biased.
as an operator and as an ex area director, i have the same bias.
transport is the waist of the hourglass. importand and fundamental
are a good choice of words.
Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
Having discussed TCP Congestion behavior with the TCP folks, and tried
to understand the issues, it seems to be very hard.
True -- most of us mis-understand congestion control in TCP. :^(
And if the AD is not well-versed in it, there is a
] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:14 AM
To: IETF
Cc: Eric Burger
Subject: Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Eric == Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com writes:
Eric There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither
Eric of which I think
On 3/3/13 8:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
When there is a choice between nominating nobody, and nominating someone
with excellent IETF experience and management skills, but who is not a
recognised specialist in the narrow technical area concerned, I believe
that standing advice to the
On Mar 3, 2013, at 18:42, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
Otherwise, the AD gets a directorate review calling out congestion problems.
He puts in the discuss. And can not discuss it with the other ADs. It is not
his discuss. He can not work out how to resolve it.
Dear IETF Community,
The 2012-2013 IETF nomination process has not yet filled the Transport
Area Director position despite several attempts to broaden the pool of
nominees. The whole community conveys our most sincere gratitude to the
existing nominees for this position. However, it seems that
On 03/03/2013 05:00, IETF Chair wrote:
...
advance. Since this discussion could lead to a change in the IESG
requirements, the IESG encourages the community to take part in this
discussion so that any changes are based on broad community input.
When there is a choice between nominating
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
