Administrative Plenary Wednesday, 29 July 2009 Minutes by Mirjam Kuehne Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Host Presentation 3. Postel Award 4. Reporting - IETF Chair Report - NOC Report - IAOC Chair & IAD Reports - Trust Chair Report - NomCom Chair Report 5. Recognition 6. IAOC Open Mic 7. IESG Open Mic Postel Award Lynn St.Amour presents this year's winner of the Jon Postel Award: CSNET: for providing the critical bridge from the original research undertaken through the ARPANET to the modern Internet. Larry Landweber should have been here to receive the award. Unfortunately he could not be here due to illness. Dave Crocker accepts the award and announces that the prize money will be donated to charities that support the Internet. IAOC Open Mic John Klensin: The report from the Trust indicated that the comment period for the Trust Legal Provisiosn (TLP) are closed and that you were reviewing the comments. You got a formal request to change that comment period. Marshall Eubanks: that will have to be considered on Thursday evening when the IETF Trust meets. There are certain things that were not at all controversial. On the other matters, this touches on question if we are going to reorganise the process or not. John Klensin: requests to suspend action until the review has been concluded. Marshall: that is under way. I don't think we will take an extended review period for that (up to 90 days is allowed). Keith Drage: question on tools team. When do we expect to see things on the tools page updated to align with the updated TLP once it is approved? Bob Hinden: We realised that some tools are maintained by the Secretariat and some tools are maintained by volunteers. Different procedures are associated with each type of maintenance. Russ Housley: the update to the TLP that was sent for review 30 days ago needed one sentence to be added to the boilerplate. It is hard to know exactly when the updated TLP will be approved, but once that happens the tools team will be asked for their estimates to do the necessary changes. We are hoping that this one sentence could get done at the same time the other changes required by the IAB headers- and-boilerplate document are done, but that might not be possible. Keith: Can something be made available on the xml2rfc web page? Russ: This is a tool that is maintaind by volunteers. Tim Chown: Thanks for the new web site! Wondering whether the IETF would be interested to make all previous T-shirts available. This could also be a way to raise more money. We could also start to design other T-shirts and sell them. Bob Hinden: yes, we have been thinking about it, have to ask previous hosts to give up the rights to the design of the T-shirts and to make them available. Probably not our highest priority, but I agree it would be nice to do. Alissa Cooper: wonders whether the IETF Trust intends to publish the subpoenas that they receive (as long as they have not been sealed by the courts). Suggesting that the IETF be transparent about the legal requests that it receives so that the community can know when information held by the IETF is being sought in litigation. Publishing the requests will likely also deter future requests. Marshall: doesn't know if the subpoenas can be published - this would have to be answered by the lawyers; he will ask them. Margaret Wasserman: thanks for the efforts to publish the backlogged IAOC minutes. The value of having a public record is very high, even if not many people are reading it right now. Encourages to publish everything you can (even if it is not very beautiful). The more record we have there, the better in case we need to explain what we do ans how we do it. Sam Weiler: you might have less subpoenas if you had less data. I would like to encourage you to destroy the archive of all blue sheets. Bob Hinden: was told that one of the reason to keep blue sheets was to have a record of how many people attended certain WGs This can be important since the IETF has no membership. Eric Burger: the blue sheets protect us as individuals. Margaret: no, don't destroy the blue sheets, don't destroy minutes. Keep it all forever! Marshall: yes, that would be my inclination. IESG Open Mic Spencer Dawkins: something that came up in the ecrit WG regarding 2427bis. How do you see that going? I didn't understand the scope of the dispatch WG. Cullen Jennings: this is new to the RAI Area. It is a way to speed up the work. Spencer: it seems that this running very effectively. Thanks to the dispatch chairs to get a lot processed through. Glen Zorn: has three drafts in Last Call. This is the first time in a while. Therefore he was forced to re-subsrcibed to the IETF Discussion mail list. The reason why he unsubscribed was the signal-to-noise ratio is too high. He is annoyed that he has to read through all this mail to find comments on his drafts. Wonders if it would be possible to start a new mailing list: something like ietf-last-call that only has traffic for IETF Last Call matters. Mary Barnes: suggests to send a copy of the comment of the e-mail to the author. Russ: the reason we do Last Call is to get information flowing across Areas. That is why the Last Call and the resulting comments are currently sent to the IETF Discussion mail list. Any change that we make must ensure the cross Area review. Ross Callon: would encourage to try setting up another mail list for Last Call. Cullen: we did decide to add the draft name in the subject line so people can find comments to their drafts. ???: it seems to be his hobby horse to point out social problems that are trying to be solved by technical solutions. In this case the social problem is that we don't get a lot of feedback on Last Calls. How should be interpret that? Do we take that as an agreement? We might want to find out why we don't get a lot of feedback before we try to find a technical solution for it. Al Morton: wonders if an e-mail list is not the best mechanism, maybe a web archive would be useful? Russ: we are working on that with the Secretariat. Better search is needed, and we hope to deploy something before the next IETF meeting. Alain Durand: he also unsubscribed from IETF Discussion mail list. Would encourage to set up a separate Last Call mail list. Glen Zorn: to clarify: he is not worried about the number of comments during Last Call, but about all the other stuff sent to the mail list and that is too much to follow. Seimo Veikkolainen (???): the meeting-attendees mail lists were a good move to reduce the noise on the IETF Discussion mail list. He doesn't think there is too much noise any longer. Easy to filter. Joel Jaeggli: spent 25 years reading mail. Somehow he learned to manage all the various messages in his inbox and wonders why other people cannot. Glen Zorn: why would I want to? Why do I have to learn it? Joel: because we are a big, uncoordinated organisation. Dave Crocker: Last Call generates spontanous small group discussions. To the extend that archiving is needed, the right people get copies of message - all these might be useful things. We should find out what communication is needed before we start to set up technical solutions. Would be happy to help with that. Tim Chown: maybe we should try to enable discussion before the Last Call comes out. Russ: good point. This is something the IESG has looked at several times over the last years. One solution was the creation of the IETF Announce list, which includes an announcment for the start of each last Call, but none of the discussion takes place on the announce mail list. Cyrus Daboo: This is a plea to find a technical solution for it and a plea to eat our own dog food! Russ: asks the audience if they would like to have a new mail list just to discuss Last Calls: - Who would like to have a new mail list set up: few hums - Who would like to keep it on IETF Discussion mail list: more hums Decided to keep the Last Call discussion on the IETF Discussion mail list. Barry Leiba: Why not have a RSS and ATOM feeds for each Last Call? Then people can subscribe to any feed in which they have interest. Russ: even though some of them will never receive a single message? Barry: yes Russ: ok, this idea is worth thinking about. |