1. Moving Forward on Working Group Snapshot IETF 59 NEWTRK Spencer Dawkins spencer@mcsr-labs.org draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt

2. IETF 59 2004 Mar 2NEWTRK WG2 You Read the Drafts, Right? WGS/SSS proposed after IETF 57 draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-00.txt –“Working Group Snapshots”, or WGS draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00.txt –“Stable Snapshots”, or SSS Similar concepts in these drafts –“WG Internet Draft < WGS < Proposed Standard” –Signal to begin prototype development –Signal to begin interoperability testing –Signal to begin external review Goals for today –More feedback: The devil remains in the details, of course –Find Convergence/Consensus –One more revision before Last Call

3. IETF 59 2004 Mar 2NEWTRK WG3 Why Working Group Snapshots at all? From my posting to Newtrk on 8 February 2004: “So far, I can think of these consumers for WGS: –“Protocol analyzers, network monitors, and load testers, –Other groups (IETF WGs and non-IETF SDOs)... –... including the various ICAR/SIR/AIR-CREW/ART teams, –The research and education communities” Some WGs have other reasons to have WGS –Before you’ve written “all” the details, –After you’ve written “all” the details, –Before you’ve interop-tested, –After you’ve interop-tested... WG needs to state purpose of each WGS

4. IETF 59 2004 Mar 2NEWTRK WG4 Those Pesky Details – Feedback From 01 Our proposed WGS declaration –WG makes the determination to do WGS –Feedback - need more eyes than just the WG’s eyes –Not sure how many, and not sure which eyes Our proposed IESG Interaction –WG notifies IESG - NEXT version of draft will be WGS –IESG can provide “surgeon’s warning” for bad ideas –Feedback – is this sufficient? Our proposed WGS lifetime –Similar to Internet-Draft – 9 months, ephemeral –Feedback – need help finding WGSs – web page(s) –Feedback – some consumers need permanent labels

5. IETF 59 2004 Mar 2NEWTRK WG5 Cutting Gordian Knots Do we need something like WGS, or not? Can WGs declare WGS on their own, or not? –AD concurrence? Three signed reviews? –Slippery slope – don’t slide into “Proposed Standard”! Are there any prerequisites, or not? –Must already be WG draft? Require WG Last Call? Is WGS ephemeral, or not? –Doesn’t help external standards groups if WGSs go away –“Internet running on PS” -> “Internet running on WGS”! Is WGS “recognized” by the IETF, or not? –New document series? Naming convention for WGS? –All WGS collected on a web-page, like IPR statements?

6. IETF 59 2004 Mar 2NEWTRK WG6 Our Slice After Listening to Feedback Do we need WGS, or not? –Yes. Some WGs need formal document synchronization Can WGs declare WGS on their own, or not? –Today – no more process than “three signed reviews” –Tomorrow – qualify reviewers with SIR/ART criteria Are there any prerequisites, or not? –WG document, with WG Last Call summary on mailing list Is WGS ephemeral, or not? –No – and this is the most controversial slice I’m making Is WGS recognized by the IETF, or not? –Could live with naming convention and WGS pointer page –Prefer new document series, but recognize high “cost”

7. IETF 59 2004 Mar 2NEWTRK WG7 Your Slice? We really want feedback –Now, or –During open discussion for this session, or –On the newtrk mailing list Please do not be shy We’ve been talking about this concept for a while We want text for one round of revisions to WGS Standalone, or in revised standards track BCP? –Charter milestone: revised standards track ID - Mar 05 WGS need not be part of the standards track BCP –Ready for Last Call on standalone draft by April 30 04