RTGWG Process for Handling New Work Proposals for the Routing Area

  1. A New Work Proposal (NWP)[1] is submitted for consideration. [A message should be sent to rtgwg-chairs@… and a copy to the rtgwg-ads@… and the WG itself (rtgwg@…).]
  1. The RTGWG Chairs conduct a preliminary review of the NWP. At this point the Chairs may direct the work to an existing WG. If clearly defined[1], the Chairs will ask for a Proposal Shepherd from the RTG Directorate to be assigned in order to help guide the NWP through the rest of the steps.
  1. Time will be allocated at the next WG meeting[2], assuming the NWP has been submitted in a timely manner. Given the additional requirements for the NWP[1], it is expected that they will be submitted with enough anticipation to request an agenda slot as needed and for proper discussion.
    • Discussion of the NWP during an in-person meeting is not mandatory.
    • It is strongly encouraged and expected that the authors discuss their work in detail on the mailing list, and that they request feedback for specific parts of their proposals in order to accelerate the process.
    • An Interim meeting may be used as well as a place for focused discussion.

  1. As a result of the WG discussions (rough consensus), the NWP may take one of several paths:
    • The work is directed to an existing WG (including RTGWG). The RTGWG Chairs (with the ADs) will coordinate with the receiving WG Chairs to verify that the work can be taken on. In either case, the NWP now becomes an item of discussion in the receiving WG. Directing a NWP to an existing WG doesn't guarantee consensus to adopt and develop in that WG (including RTGWG).
    • Develop a proposal for a BOF. The Proposal Shepherd and the authors will work on the details of a BOF proposal. The RTGWG mailing list can be used for discussion so that the process benefits from a larger community interaction, unless the WG Chairs and the ADs consider necessary to separate the discussions.
    • Develop a charter for a new WG. The Proposal Shepherd and the authors will work on the details of defining a charter for a new WG. Close coordination with the ADs will be necessary. A separate (non-WG) mailing list may be created to foster the discussion.
    • The NWP is rejected or deferred. In this case the discussion around the NWP will no longer be sponsored in the RTGWG mailing list. As explained in the charter, any proposal can be reconsidered. However, the priority of a resubmission will be much lower than that of a brand new NWP.

[1] The NWP MUST include the following: clear problem statement, applicability of the solution, expected outcome, and indication of its relationship to other efforts in RTG (or elsewhere). Ideally a draft will already exist to cover parts of these requirements.

[2] The WG Chairs will do everything possible to schedule ample time at the WG meeting and to separate the discussion of NWP from the chartered items discussions. However, if the time is not enough and the IETF agenda for the meeting has already been defined, priority will be given to chartered items before NWPs.

Last modified 3 years ago Last modified on Jan 17, 2016, 3:12:28 PM