Re: WG Review: Dispatch (dispatch)

--On Saturday, June 6, 2026 03:27 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear Internet Engineering Streering Group,
> At 12:15 PM 05-06-2026, The IESG wrote:
>> The Dispatch (dispatch) WG in the Applications and Real-Time Area
>> of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any
>> determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and
>> is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your
>> comments to the IESG mailing list ([email protected]) by 2026-06-15.
>> 
>> Dispatch (dispatch)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----- Current status: Active WG
>> 
>> Chairs:
>>   Shuping Peng <[email protected]>
>>   Jim Fenton <[email protected]>
>> 
>> Assigned Area Director:
>>   Andy Newton <[email protected]>
>> 
>> Applications and Real-Time Area Directors:
>>   Andy Newton <[email protected]>
>>   Charles Eckel <[email protected]>
>> 
>> Mailing list:
>>   Address: [email protected]
>>   To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>   Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/
>> 
>> Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dispatch/
>> 
>> Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dispatch/
>> 
>> To help facilitate the introduction of proposed new work, DISPATCH
>> WG provides a standing venue to provide feedback on, and define
>> next steps for topics in the ART, SEC and non-transport aspects of
>> the WIT areas. This facilitation is enabled through a discussion
>> mailing list to germinate new ideas before they might move to a
>> dedicated mailing list.
> 
> A simplistic version of the proposed charter is that there will be
> a standing venue to help the relevant Area Director decide whether
> there is a need to create a new mailing list under the "ietf.org"
> label.  It looks a lot like "red tape" [1].

Given history, I don't see it that way.  First, and most important,
it is a forum for giving relevant ADs advice about what should be
done with a particular proposal ("next steps for..."), with "create a
mailing list" being only one of a collection of options.  If the
"move to a dedicated mailing list" terminology appears to constrain
that range of choices and/or to prohibit either a "this does not
belong in the IETF" or a "assign to a particular existing WG"
recommendation, then the text is probably in need of tweaking.

Along the same lines, "topics in the ... areas" can be read as making
it appropriate for the WG to take up a "topic", rather than, as has
generally been the case, considering only I-Ds with more or less
specific proposals.  Some clarification about that might save trouble
in the future.

> The proposed charter allows for great flexibility; it doesn't
> constrain the working group chair or the relevant area director to
> do anything.  As an example, the proposed working group may make a
> recommendation to an area director.  The area director is not
> required to follow that recommendation though.

I think that is intentional and certainly has been the intent in the
past.  Do you see that as a problem and, if so, why?

> The proposed charter states that "facilitation is enabled through a
> discussion mailing list to germinate new ideas ..."  drafts
> (proposals) generally receive on or two comments on the mailing
> list.  I'll leave it to anyone who considers himself/herself as new
> to see whether the facilitation actually works.

See above.  However, I agree with you that the DISPATCH mailing list
itself has not proven to be a particularly good place to develop
ideas.  On the other hand, creating a specialized, topic-specific,
mailing list too early has had a tendency to confine discussions to
people with very specific interest in the particular topic of that
list, rather than encouraging an understanding of the relationship
among the topic, any proposed solutions deriving from it, and overall
impact on the Internet.   I have no idea about that other than hoping
that good judgment is exercised on a case-by-case basis _and_ the
community in general, and relevant ADs in particular, being aware of
the risks and tensions.  I don't believe that trying to be more
specific in the charter document would help much with that.

> I did a search on "dispatch":
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search?name=&sort=&activedrafts=on
> &olddrafts=on&by=group&group=dispatch It did not return that many
> results.  I also glanced through the minutes for previous meetings.
> It doesn't look like proposals going through "dispatch" have a high
> success rate.

No opinion other than to wonder if proposals handled in other ways,
at least unless they are significantly implemented and deployed
before getting near the IETF, have a much better success rate.  Do
you have better ideas?

> A problem that an organization which relies on volunteers faces is
> that "there are not enough individuals willing to complete the
> work".  It does not make sense to encourage people to bring new
> work into an Area if the Area was unable to attract people who will
> do the unsponsored reviews.

While I (at least mostly) agree, isn't part of the DISPATCH role to
take the temperature of the community and advise on whether there is
likely to be sufficient energy to move the work forward?  Again, if
the charter text appears to discourage efforts to make that
determination and give advice about it, that text should probably be
tuned.  I'd consider that part of "provide feedback on... next steps"
but, if it isn't clear and/or advice about the likely success of a WG
or list is considered critical, perhaps more words belong in the
charter.
 
> A larger problem is that there isn't adequate public discussion on
> whether the proposals have an effect on the Internet.

Yes, often.  But it seems to me that part of the role of a Dispatch
process is to provide a forum for starting such a discussion.  If
that fails, it is up to the chairs and relevant ADs to determine that
actual or potential damage level and what to do about it... and to
the WG to advise on whether work should move forward if there is
limited evidence of interest in such a discussion.  It isn't clear to
me that further charter-tweaking would be likely to help with that.

Finally, a more general issue: the charter, as written, makes this
appear to be an ART WG with responsibility for considering topics
that may be more relevant to SEC and WIT and advising those ADs.
Having the charter identify a single AD as responsible for the WG and
then list only the ADs from the ART Area, seems inconsistent with
what I had understood from earlier discussions to be shared
responsibility for the WG with advice given to any or all of the
three Areas as appropriate.
 
best,
    john


p.s. the plans for a DISPATCH interim that have been discussed on the
DISPATCH and SECDISPATCH lists themselves have, IMO, provided
examples of issues that are germane to the role of the WG and general
charter issues, with some of the content of 
 
	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/7tFDDX170OokKTM6aIe1be_AGDY
and
	https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/kFBietE1FqIE3p8-ZKZb49voV-w

particularly relevant to those issues rather than, e.g., particular
topics for the interim.  I didn't think starting to cross-post would
be helpful, but those messages, at least, might be worth examination.