Hi Linda, Just responding to your comment about SD-WAN and BoFs. It is true that some SD-WAN related drafts are being worked on in various routing area WGs. If you believe there’s a need for the IETF to consider an SD-WAN working group to tackle this work, please feel welcome to propose a WG-forming BoF for the same. What helps make it successful: a group of proponents, a clear and focused problem statement, draft charter (even if rough), relevant use cases or deployment drivers, and active community engagement, especially on an IETF mailing list (that you may also request for). It’s also helpful to have industry support (vendors, operators, academia) and awareness of related IETF work to avoid overlap. Once those pieces are in place, you can fill out the BoF Proposal Form and submit it to the IESG/Secretariat (ideally 8–10 weeks before an IETF meeting but sooner would be better as well). That should include the BoF title, scope, agenda, goals (e.g., form WG), and expected participants. Be well, G/ Routing AD -----Original Message----- From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:54 PM To: Michael StJohns <msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: "Tiny" working groups CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. This is a very good idea—thank you for articulating it so clearly. I have several SD-WAN-related drafts currently scattered across different WGs. Some of those WGs feel SD-WAN is out of scope, and at the same time, the topic is considered too narrow to justify the overhead of forming a full WG. Yet, SD-WAN is widely deployed and clearly in need of interoperable, standards-based solutions. Progress has been very slow—some of these drafts have been adopted by WG but can't go to WGLC for over five years with little movement. The lack of a focused venue has contributed to the delay. The "tiny WG" model you describe—short-lived, narrowly scoped, and tightly managed—sounds like a great way to make progress on focused topics like SD-WAN. I especially like the idea of a small document set, strict timelines, a single facilitator-type chair, and a clear no-extension policy. It strikes a good balance between flexibility and discipline. I'd be very supportive of piloting this approach and would be happy to provide SD-WAN as a candidate topic if it helps move the conversation forward. Best regards, Linda -----Original Message----- From: Michael StJohns <msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:14 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: "Tiny" working groups Hi - Sitting in on the various DISPATCH and DISPATCH-like discussions, I came to a conclusion that we may be doing ourselves a disservice in the way we think of WGs. I.e., one size fits all. Quite a number of the conclusions on the documents or topics were sort of of the form "could use a WG, but none exists - maybe create one", but that comes with a lot of overhead. E.g. space at the F2F meetings, chairs, AD oversight, perhaps an overly broad focus? (I intentionally ignore mailing lists and github repos here as the cost is negligent for the operation). What if we define a class of "tiny" WGs, laser focused on a single topic, with a very short timeframe and with a small (2-3?) permitted number of documents ALL due at the same time, and with a single chair? No extensions, no recharters, feet to the fire. Easier to get chartered, impossible to live more than say 18 months. Participants agree to a bit more "chair is in charge" than we usually see or need. Ideally, chair is a facilitator, not a participant and/or editor and chosen by the AD for that purpose. Chair can kill the WG if progress isn't being made on schedule. At any given F2F meeting, there would be 1 or 2 sessions where each tiny WG would get no more than 15 minutes of talk-talk time. Any tiny WG ending before the next F2F would get 30 minutes and that would feed into an area review of the documents. Any tiny WG past its expiration date would be required to focus only on resolving last-call comments from various reviews - no feature creep permitted. Datatracker would identify "tiny WG" sourced documents for the area and ADs would have a set of rules specific to those. This is sort of a half-formed thought. It's still *mostly* within the way the IETF does things from the document point of view, but narrows the focus of a given tiny WG from the broad to the specific. And lets us treat different topics - differently. Thoughts? Mike
