Subject: Successful BOF Sessions (RFC 5434) - Missing piece?

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:28:34 +0200

I considered posting to the IETF main list, but I thought I'd start a 
bit smaller.

Ralph put up a slide in the DNSSDEXT BOF, which quoted a bit of RFC 5434 
that surprised me:

    ...the goal of the BOF is to demonstrate that the community has
    agreement that:

       - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
         group to attempt solving it.

       - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
         problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).

       - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
         is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
         what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.

       - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
         proposed documents) are the right set.

       - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
         having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
         charter in a timely fashion).

It seemed to me that there was a serious omission from this list:

    - it is believed that there a critical mass of implementers who will
      use the output of the working group.

In fact, I couldn't find the word "implement" anywhere in the document. 
Do we just assume implementers but don't mention them, or (and I hope 
this is not the case) do we really think that it is an irrelevant 
question to consider regarding a successful BOF?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:41:44 +0200

On 8/1/13 1:28 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> ...a critical mass of implementers...

And of course I was reminded offline that I forgot about "operators", 
who are also the consumers of our output. I'm such an apps guy. :-[

pr

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:42:08 +0200

Sorry for top posting, but I believe you are missing the idea that BoFs can
be on topics related to operational practice.  You are looking for "is
there a community that will *use* the results of the work", of which
implementors are a potential class.

regards,

Ted

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>wrote:

> I considered posting to the IETF main list, but I thought I'd start a bit
> smaller.
>
> In fact, I couldn't find the word "implement" anywhere in the document. Do
> we just assume implementers but don't mention them, or (and I hope this is
> not the case) do we really think that it is an irrelevant question to
> consider regarding a successful BOF?
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.**com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> >

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:44:51 +0000

+1 and + more, because I am missing at least another two words beyond 'implement' in this text, and these are 'deploy' and 'use'. 

I guess that in the intention of the authors of RFC 5434 these words are hidden behind the etc. in (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.)

I believe that these should be made explicit. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Pete Resnick
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 2:29 PM
> To: WG Chairs
> Cc: Thomas Narten
> Subject: Successful BOF Sessions (RFC 5434) - Missing piece?
>

---

From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:49:22 +0200

How do we measure critical mass?
I think that critical mass typically means commercial products include
implementations and are shipped to customers (I.e., there is running code).
I'm not sure that WG participants necessarily have the authority to
promise implementations.
I think that "the right set" item might imply that implementations would
follow. 
--
David Harrington
[email-masked]
+1-603-828-1401

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:57:41 +0200

> I'm not sure that WG participants necessarily have the authority to

It depends on the technology. For some (again, I'm such an apps guy), 
the implementers had better be in the room themselves. With others it 
might be an educated guess on potential for consumers of the technology, 
be it "the people writing code back at my office" or "the operators who 
I'm pretty sure will use this knob if I give it to them". But my gut was 
that it should be explicitly thought about during the BOF.

> I think that "the right set" item might imply that implementations would

It wasn't clear to me that it was. That's why I asked.

pr

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:49:36 +0100

On 1 Aug 2013, at 12:28, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I considered posting to the IETF main list, but I thought I'd start a bit smaller.
> 
> Ralph put up a slide in the DNSSDEXT BOF, which quoted a bit of RFC 5434 that surprised me:
> 
….
> In fact, I couldn't find the word "implement" anywhere in the document. Do we just assume implementers but don't mention them, or (and I hope this is not the case) do we really think that it is an irrelevant question to consider regarding a successful BOF?

This is a fair question.  I think it's implicit in "there is a problem that needs solving" and "there is a critical mass of participats willing to work on the problem" but perhaps it could be made more explicit.

In the case of dnssdext we are aware of a number of early vendor implementations that are attempting to address the problem documented in the charter, hence a desire to work towards a standards-based way of doing it.

I've only been to a small number of BoFs this IETF, but not all have taken the 5434 approach.

Tim

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:56:58 +0200

Hi Pete,

I think this question is just too speculative to take seriously. Not 
your question here, the question you'd want asked at the BOF.

Even when we ask people at a BOF, "who would be willing to edit/review", 
we know the responses are way too optimistic. So asking about 
implementations this early in the process is IMHO not useful, in that we 
cannot expect reliable information.

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:23:46 +0100

+1

I sometimes feel the question is "Who would be willing to put their hand up if I asked a question?"

A

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Yaron Sheffer
> Sent: 01 August 2013 15:57
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: Thomas Narten; WG Chairs
> Subject: Re: Successful BOF Sessions (RFC 5434) - Missing piece?
> 
> Hi Pete,
>

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:44:49 -0400

> question to consider regarding a successful BOF?

FWIW, some more words would probably be helpful. But it would require
nuance...

I could be flippant and note that in today's internet, one can pretty
much always find an implementation of just about everything. I.e.,
could be a student project in linux. Thus, even asking about
"implementations" needs to be more nuanced, with a key aspect
presumably being an implementation that is "real" and would be the
basis for "real" deployment/usage.

Up-leveling, an important theme is "understand the real/actual end
customer" of the work and what their real commitment to using the
output will be. If no such "real" end customer actually exists (or if
they are not in the room helping forumlate the requirements), be
skeptical of forming a WG.

Thomas