3 Plenary

Current Meeting Report


IETF 58 Wednesday Night Plenary Minutes

  • Scribe - Spencer Dawkins, spencer@mcsr-labs.org
  • For references to "Solutions" mailing list, see http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/solutions
  • The Jabber logs are quite good (available at http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/plenary@ietf.xmpp.org/2003-11-12.html and http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/plenary@ietf.xmpp.org/2003-11-13.html)

* Welcome - Harald and Leslie

Doing different split than usual - the IESG and IAB will report on what they've been up to on Wednesday, give people a night to think and and day to talk (or vice versa), and then listen on Thursday.

Attendance - smallest IETF since 1997, 1211 attendees
  • Representing far fewer countries than Vienna - 29 vs 40
  • Reasons include - severe visa problems for many contributors coming to the US. This does not look good for future meetings.
  • 256 companies represented.
Kudos for the NOC who chased down IEEE 802.11 ad hoc nodes insisting that they were really the IETF58 network.

Next IETF meeting will be in Korea, hosted by Samsung, organized by KIEF, Feb 28-March 5
Summer 2004 and Fall 2004 meetings likely back in the US

Since IETF 57, have produced RFCs 3550-3645, DHCPv6, Diameter, Draft RTP, Security Considerations, many SIP documents, many others

Finances don't look good, real income from meetings significantly lower than budgeted
  •     Secretariat staffing was reduced - less room for projects

* IAB Report - Leslie Daigle

IAB publishing documents - looking for input on Congestion Control for Voice Traffic, Internet Research and Evolution
  • published RFC 3639, Security Mechanisms for the Internet, ISOC BoT Appointment Procedures
  • ICANN commentary on VeriSign wildcarding in .com/.net - Leslie recused herself, Harald actually worked with the IAB on this one.
Tony Hain appeal response
  • Available on IAB website. Long response - 40 KB. Short summary - IAB upheld IESG upholding AD upholding WG chairs...

* IANA Report - John Crain

Michelle is especially productive (headed for maternity leave)
Have hired general manager at IANA and added staff
New registry matrix available next week
Testing workflow software
Doug Barton joining IANA from Yahoo!
RFC Editor Report - Joyce Reynolds


Mark Crispin - can I have nroff source back?
- Yes, and we are also accepting XML - don't start over!
Charles Perkins - what about naming a corresponding author for I-Ds approved for publication?
-People change jobs, or just disappear - what to do? Some authors have been removed by ADs because we can't find them

* IRTF Update - Vern Paxson

AAAArch - energy and work moving to GGF
ASRG - may have reverse MX ready for IETF - Paul Judge stepping down, replaced by John Levine
DTNRG - coupling ad hoc IP routing and DTN store-and-forward, documents ready for publication
GSEC - still meeting
IMRG - bandwidth estimation workshop coming up in December, designing protocols to aid measurement, packet sampling
NMRG - SMIng publishing as Experimental
NSRG - closing
P2P - kicking off
SIREN - stalled for problem statement
SMRG - actively seeking members and topics
RRG - new chair, Avri Doria, routing requirements draft
MOBOPTS - from Vienna, research MIP counterpart
  • Topics - loc-id split, DDOS defenses, network intrusion detection, security mechanism evaluation/testing - please send feedback to irtf-chair@irtf.org


Melinda Shore - what happened to CFRG?
- Didn't file summary with Vern, so don't have report in his presentation, but they're still out there

- NOMCOM - Rich Draves

Watch your mail for incoming questionnaires...
Still looking for nominations (noon deadline on Friday)
nomcom@ietf.org, office hours at this meeting

* Advcomm Committee (ADVCOMM) Report - Leslie Daigle

This was a effort to improve the administrative side of IETF. Participants were IETF-experienced, especially aware of the oral history of the IETF for data gathering part of the task.

This effort isn't long-term - a 00 draft will be published after these plenaries, followed by final report and recommendations. They expect to shut down by mid-December.

This is NOT the reorganization effort, or the standards track change effort

Important support organizations aren't familiar to participants - CNRI, Foretec, USC/ISI, ICANN

Stress points:
  • informal
  • oral heritage of procedures and knowledge
  • institutional records stored across multiple organizations
  • manual labor and lack of coordination
  • negative trends in meeting attendence, hence revenue for IETF
Work intended identifying top-down requirements (some currently met)
  • stewardship - accountability, persistence and accessibility of records
  • resource management - clarity in relationships, budgetary autonomy and unity, flexibility in service provisioning, admistrative efficiency
  • working environment - minimal overhead and volunteer effort as our heritage, but maybe need service automation, tools
  • administrative structure changes are required
  • IETF organization should be formalized
  Next Steps
  • report, wrap up ADVCOMM, collect comments
Harald and Leslie Conclusions
  • IETF legal existence is irregular
  • good work by fellow travelers
  • not easy to get all this right - need to make it easier to get work done
  • proposing IETF and IAB chairs to run the process with support
  • is this OK? advcom@ietf.org for feedback


Scott Bradner - "community approval when appropriate" is fuzzy - can you clarify?
- either do it at the plenary or fess up at a plenary
- can't wait for a plenary for every decision, especially for detailed legal discussions
- do we have the right level of accountability?
- last call process used where appropriate

Bob Hinden - generally supportive - need periodic status reports - not just a last call

Pete Resnick - "fellow travelers"? corporate status a given?
- No!

Keith Moore - do we get to see the plan?
- won't wake up one day and find out the IETF has been incorporated
- yes, you will get to see the plan - there are parts we can only describe after the fact
- most of the secrets will be personnel topics

Eric Fleischmann - incorporated in Norway, or elsewhere?
- have to figure this out, don't know yet

Graham Challice? - what if IAB and IESG disagree?
- then we won't have consensus

John Snitzler - conditions for retroactive notification? is plenary attendance a condition for participation? plenaries aren't transparent (posted agendas, etc.)
- plenaries are important
- we aren't a membership organization, so can't vote
- we hear you, and recognize need for advance notification

Tol Badge? - please explain proposals in words we can understand! we are an international body
- as Norwegian and Canadian, we hear you

* IESG Work on IETF Process - Ted Hardie, Margaret Wasserman, Alex Zinin

Definition of the desired IETF process as a collective hallucination that doesn't lose money and works well together...

Our mission statement was too long - maybe "we make the net work" would have been the better choice.

Too many roles that fall to the same group of people
  • Edu team, AdvComm, Experimental/Informational review ... we can differentiate based on functions
  • need to support critical core value: cross-functional review
  • more than just participating in a working group - IETF-wide last call, IESG review, WG "tourism"
  • huge IETF resource is "off the books" - participants' time
  • need to ask for help as more than a general appeal to a large group
  • need to match management to change under consideration
  • NEWTRK vs "Working Group Secretary for minutes production"


John Loughney - who is "we"? IETF? IESG? you, plus help?
- IESG presentation was agreed by IESG, my drafts weren't - they were individual proposals

Brian Carpenter - tools? is this EDU? don't forget it!
- no, different set of skills. IESG and non-IESG are working on this, but IESG isn't driving it.

* IESG Work on Working Group Chairs - Margaret Wasserman

This proposal is starting from the Problem Statement draft - specifically, that the management structure of the IETF is not matched to size and complexity of IETF
  • span of authority, workload, concentration of influence in too few hands
We have more managers than we think - with inefficiently distributed authority and responsibility

Increase authority and responsibility of WG chairs
  • focus now is moving AD authority and responsibility to WG chairs
  • other possibilities exist for the future
Proposed changes
  • No WG document ownership handoff
  • Ensure document quality
  • Manage document production
  • Manage WG mailing lists
Many specifics, including
  • document writeups for IESG review
  • managing document editors
  • suspend posting privileges of disruptive participants
We think WG chairs can do some of these things under existing 2418 RFC - reinforce this!

WG chairs get more responsibility and more work. They have more control, though

And a transition is required - not a flag day


Scott Bradner - I-Ds have touched on some of this previously - WG chairs on review calls, etc.
- have discussed this, but need help with logistics
- too little discussion time for a document to make participation possible
proposal is to patch 2418 - lots of other suggested patches over the years, too - are we doing only this?
- this is one patch, but other patches can be considered, too - just not tied to an open discussion
2026 also needs to be updated, if no document handoff takes place in new vision
- yes, this is possible

Keith Moore - can we read the draft?
- yes, it's available

??? - shock treatment - what possibility for gradual implementation?
- don't know yet - need a project plan

John Snitzline - accountability of new WG chairs? Selection process for WG chairs? WG chairs tend to be advocates now...
- no proposal to change how WG chairs are selected

Dave Crocker - we have one month to review changes?
- maybe it will take longer
what do ADs do then?
- my opinion - scope of IETF work and stds-track document approval
current authority of some of these items is actually with the WG, not the ADs
- we'll talk tomorrow

Ed Juscoviscious - how close to full time is a WG chair job?
- depends on the WG, have to delegate, too

Mark Crispin - current system of checks and balances is being thrown out - how is new system established?
- we're getting abuses today, according to the problem statement
is there a vision about how problems are prevented?
- only document written is an update to 2418

Bob Hinden - WG chairs have to resolve AD comments? this area needs more work
- shepherding AD doesn't have authority to ask for discuss removal now...

Jim Bound - why not POISED?
- it's closed

* Cross-functional Review - Alex Zinin

Cross-functional reviews today can be community or management
  • tends to be late in the process - leads to surprises and frustration
  • IESG review won't scale
  • expert groups not widely known
  • no general process support for early review
Many reasons for early cross-functional review in problem statement document

Transition likely to cover two IETF periods

Discussion on Solutions list

Scott Bradner - what's the real timeline? February is aggressive...
- discussion period is short, transition is at least two IETF periods

James Polk - concerned with each proposal - no reference to load on security area - we review every document
- each area review team has a security person
not enough language or appreciation for the amount of work required

Melinda Shore - "make a decision" - what does that mean?
- decision by IETF consensus

* Summary - Harald Alverstrand

These proposals include "figure out what the proposal is, discuss with community, reach consensus, and then do it"
  • Is the IETF a standards organization?
  • Is the IETF making standards for the Internet, or for "what's on the Internet"?
  • Is functional differentiation reasonable?
  • What should we go after first?
  • Is WG chair proposal right(er than what we're doing now)?
  • MUCH more work required for document review topic.

IETF 58 Thursday Night Plenary Minutes

We started off with some IAB work...

* Insecurities at the Edge - Bernard Aboba, with help from friends

- please think broadly! what should the IETF be doing? What additional questions should be asked?
  • International extortion threats over the net, exploiting security problems
  • The Internet is an ideal environment for the spread of epidemics, and the environment is taking us where we'd expect
  • Bernard presented anecdotal evidence for virus spreads (Blaster, etc) and longevity of infected and infecting hosts
  • Spam growth rate much higher after SoBig - not getting better
  • the end is not trustable - middle taking action to protect the ends?
  • authentication helps, but infected hosts may be authenticated
  • legal and economic forces interact, too
  • Dave Crocker has a taxonomy of control points
  • what should we be doing?
  • Studies, accountability, detection, epidemiology (post hoc)
  • "The attackers don't have to go through the IETF" - distributed attack, but no distributed defense
  • It's hard to deploy defenses - what will attackers/attacks look like in five years? no short-term fixes


Keith Moore - lack of genetic diversity in devices being infected - not on the list now
- if vendors punt on the easy stuff, what can the IETF do? MIME prohibition against executing arbitrary content
- SPAM spread by viruses, so can't solve the SPAM problem until we solve the virus problem, but ...
- OS problems, not network problems

Paul Hoffman - terminology would help, especially if the press can use it effectively
- Keith is right, viruses become spam vectors
- our terminology will keep us from helping anyone - need a doc for us and others

Michael Richardson - MIME - what can the IETF do? We did something a decade ago, and it was the right thing
- evolution will take care of this problem
- did we do the wrong thing when we published MIME? All our prohibitions didn't matter - what do we do now?

Eric Rescorla - we had a spam problem before viruses, and we'll have one after viruses - problem is bigger than that
-  we have an end-to-end architecture, and we liked it. Is it killing us?

Leslie - what are implications for the end-to-end model?

Ted Lemon - Paul Vixie proposed IP addresses for relays in the DNS - this would help kill SOBIG
-  why didn't we do this? a lot of small solutions get proposed - what if there's no big solution?

Bob Hinden - we haven't seen anything yet! lots of always-on, always-reachable devices - need more control themselves
- it's going to get worse

Alan DeKok - I get a million delivered spam per day. Not a problem because no one notices - it's the common cold
- need pneumonia to get results - do something!

Spencer Dawkins - could we use what we learned from .com DNS wildcarding to talk about MIME?
- but people aren't suffering yet

Pekka Nikander - Many people have used biology as an analogy for the current situation.
- However, in my humble opinion we should more focus on microeconomics.
- What is the computing and communication cost of responding to a connection request vs. initiating the connection?

John Wroclowski - there are number of different problems, that's why we have different points of view and solutions
- we need terminology to do prioritization

??? - not always technical solutions to management problems - best defenses may be legal, political, social
Dave Crocker - this is not one problem, but a range, with different participants
- accountable spammers and rogue spammers - we live in a different threat world - we've moved to New York City
- solution-rich environment, need to identify long-term solutions

Itojun - lacking two things - ease of use by everyday people in security technologies and public key infrastructure

Stanislav Shalunov - spam and viruses are mail from strangers I didn't want to receive - not only commercial/religious/political/etc.
-  still need to be able to accept mail from strangers

Lee Gimaden - receiver has no way to slow down/stop a sender - how to shut up a host?

Keith Moore - configuration management of access points that we used to rely on endpoints for

* Rich Draves - Nomcom Chair

Rich made a quick announcement that Randy Bush is resigning his position, so NOMCOM needs to fill an additional position in OPS - they extended the deadline a bit.

* Brett Thorsen - local network

NOC staff is seeing LOTS of machines running ad hoc ietf58 - we think this is because OSes are trying to be "friendly". They've seen as many as 53 hosts at once

Also seeing LOTS of infected machines. They've gone to a Penalty Box that blackholes offending hosts, and next time we'll do it sooner

They're also seeing external scans, controlled from routers

Thanks for e-mailing problem reports to 58crew - we read every one

* Open Mike Session - feedback from yesterday's presentation

Harald had gotten some feedback already
  • IESG responding to community urgency from Vienna - were we overanxious? about schedules? "earliest possible time?"
  • Slides were proposals, not announcements of decisions - not trying to surprise the community, if we did, we blew it
Harald put up a slide of directed questions from IESG session

Melinda Shore - these are the wrong questions - there was no consensus in Vienna to kick problem resolutiuon to IESG
  • we have a problem with decision-making. we don't need the IESG to identify solutions, but to make decisions
  • process is not open now, and that's exactly from the problem statement now!
  • needs to be more participatory, more collaborative
  • how to make decisions? if process is open and collaborative, I can live with majority decision, not consensus
Charles Perkins - presentations last night were surprisingly good
  • expanding participatory role of WG chair is a good thing
  • IESG decisions on documents seem to be arbitrary and undocumented - will WG chair decisions be better documented?
  • Can they all be as good as Russ Housley's document on key distribution requirements?
Joel Halpern - no matter what process you use, you're gonna get grief for it, so you're doing just fine
  • Margaret's document is very good - can you last call it after the meeting?
  • EDU group help WG chairs to review for quality?
David Perkins - meaning of words change over time - we are a technology invention body, not a standards body

Sue Hares - IETF built on 15 years of collaboration for technical excellence - that's untouchable
  • can't build trust quickly - we are so different from corporation-based standards bodies
  • proposals yesterday were a network flag day-equivalent - can't do it with people
  • proud of people, not proud of technologies
  • build collaboration slowly, and shoot it quickly
  • WG proposal was a poor proposal - who really wants to work at layer nine?
  • who would want to be a WG chair?
  • cross-area review needs personal relationships to succeed
Alex - we've been discussing for a long time - need to fix a flying plane and not crash it

Harald - we're an Internet organization, and a people organization, too. Susan was right

Eric Rescola - "I just want to do engineering, not politics" - but we're a 2000-person organization. 25 people need management

Pete Resnick - concerned about moves to give more power to WG chairs. Don't need more power, need to use power they've got
  • don't increase it! WG chairs as document shepherds is great - also helps with openness. ID tracker helps, but thiswould help more. WG chair is part of process that never gets appealed ("discuss") - be prepared!
John Loughney - WG chairs want to be more equal in getting a document approved, discusses removed, etc.
  • most review proposals overlap - just need more accountability and interaction/feedback
  • when I've collaborated with the IESG, that's been the best part of the IETF - make/keep it collaborative
Thomas Narten - one critical difference in proposals is who review go to - please think about this

Ted Hardie - WG chair changes role from being a reviewer to being an advocate - how does this fit in the WG environement?

Keith Moore - first cuts at solutions needed to come from IESG - thank you!
  • WG chairs managing document process is brilliant
  • doubt about giving WG chairs more control - conflict of interest, maybe more appeals
  • WG process needs help - we don't know how do to engineering *here* - charter to solution doesn't work
Randy Bush - quality of documents?

Eric Burger - we're always whining about how we need to change - we've gotten enough leadership to have a doc to shred!
  • Maybe we could do the January timeline? Impossible - we're engineers
  • we're getting to more normal levels of income and participations - let's make this work for us
  • should we be shrinking the IETF?
Steve Bellovin - not one of the drafts was draft-iesg! we don't have consensus and didn't try to get it
  •   these proposals are not the answer - we took our shot, now take yours
Melinda Shore - Vienna looked like "we can't make consensus decisions, so now you have to"
  • what about other (non-IESG) proposals? how are you getting participation?
Brian Carpenter - we got an initial burst of enthusiasm for SIRs, but have now done seven reviews...
  • needs weight behind SIR to succeed - needs to come from you
Dave Crocker - not a lot of calls for reviewers - that's the critical thing.

Rob Austein - IETF value-add is review of other people's stuff - we need management to make sure this happens

Ted Hardie - we don't have a lot of tools to make this an open process, but we are planning to use mailing lists
  • both IETF and SOLUTIONS - if you have suggestions, please help out
John Wroclowski - Lots of merit in Margaret's proposal, because it offloads IESG that is staggering
  • but overlooks how people work and how they are motivated
  • people come here paid by sponsors, or at least on a mission
  • where are the checks and balances?
  • we're trying to engineer a political process, and that's not going to be easy
  • document not ready for prime time yet
Alex - not fair to ask WG chairs to ensure document quality and be fair?

John - collaboration needs to be the expected goal
  • what is motivation?
Bernard - IESG is accountable to NOMCOM, WG chairs are not - this is a check/balance

Harald - we have checks/balances in place that doesn't work well enough, but we aren't changing everything now

Allison - document isn't complete, need to document more of relationships, expect ADs have more time for WG chairs

Eric - issue John raised is important - social issues are the most important here - you get to help...

John - there is a difference between incentives and checks and balances - when incentives fail, you use checks and balances

Alex Conta - had nightmares from presentations last night - WG chairs not elected, have names all over specifications
  • already have lots of power - how neutral are they supposed to be?
  • no term limits ... where are the tools?
Thomas Narten - in order for this to work, there's a culture change
  • clear expectations for role of WG chairs
Ted Hardie - nothing in the current proposal about changing the way ADs choose chairs - but having two chairs helps
Alex Conta - two equal chairs from opposite camps is actually rare
  • more senior chair drives the process
  • can violate the will of the working group
Harald - good idea for chair empowerment? 60% good, 10% bad, 10% don't know - not consensus
  • change document review - 50% good, 2 people bad, lots of people don't know
  • if we can do only one? document review done first
  • keep talking
Ted Lemon - IETF has embarrassment of riches of really smart people, and that's a big problem
  • too many competing proposals to solve the same problem - can't get consensus
  • very pleased with what I saw last night, some problems, don't wait for perfection or consensus
Ted Hardie - draft-hardie-alt-consensus - could you provide feedback?
  • may need another tool in the toolbelt when we have to make a decision
April Marine - both good and bad ideas! IETF is traditionally a volunteer organization, wouldn't exist without volunteers
  • not everyone out here gets the same level of support from employers as IESG/IAB - have the same problem finding candidates
  • you're not the boss of me, and you can't tell me what to do, but you can? needs to be really collaborative
  • can't be us/them - have to be we... if we forget about volunteerism, we'll have a big change
Thomas Narten - not about offloading IESG, about making system work better and faster
Alex - do you have specific suggestions?

April - not sure it's possible - we're not looking at the fact we're running out of money

Melinda - IESG got the token because our decision process is failing - we need to focus on consensus process
  • next meeting is in Seoul, demographics depend on location, plenary is decision making body ???
  • what if we can'tcome to consensus? what then?
  • need a comfort level in the process going forward
Jonnes - liked yesterday's proposals - good step forward, take it as a baseline
  • need accountabilities for WG chairs so we don't have the same issues one level down
Pete Resnick - ADVCOMM - there is a problem, I agree.
  • Is becoming a corporation a done deal? Have you talked to lawyers?
  • is there another clever plan? Would we have corporate officers with responsibilities to the money?
  • Not-for-profit might have other responsibilities (other than our purpose)
  • need to remain open, accountable to membership ...
Rob Austein - don't want to be a guinea pig for a new form of legal entity...

Bernard - we have to deal with money, but it's not our primary objective. If we don't deal with it, someone else will.

Pete - because of the nature of the organization, we're going to be guinea pigs anyway...

Harald - lots of organizations have aspects of weirdness that we have - we may not be as novel as we think

Olle Viktorsson - proposals are in line with my thinking - implementation is harder than proposing
  • WG chairs need help in their new role - prioritizing, for example
Spencer - we've become a producer of documents, not a producer of standards
  • we've become a producer of proposed standards
Mike Stamford? - how much additional work really? An hour per week?
  • How many areas can we be attached to?
  • Need to look to generalists to help with review
  • I could be the entire review committee for one area...
John Schnitzlein - our structure isn't scaling, but we're changing our process, not our structure
  • we have a large, complex organization, full of people trying to work an agenda
  • changing the workflow won't solve our problems
  • don't take old fantasy of how WGs work and push it out, expecting things to work
Ted Hardie - we proposed more structural changes than we presented last night. Please give us feedback.  
  • we need to look at the whole, we need to project a vision, we have to achieve it incrementally.
John - don't blame the community for not reading enough drafts

Ted - please help us change

Alex - change process doesn't stop us from what we are doing

John - need a design first

Jordi Palet - power to the working group, not just the chair
  • let the chairs be part of the working group
  • need to be more democratic - let the WG choose/replace chairs, etc.
Harald - if we have elections, we have to have membership, so we have membership criteria
  • (and don't dump this on nomcom!)
Ralph Droms - my internal pushback against the proposals last night - were any current WG chairs involved?

Steve Bellovin - well, we have several WG chairs on IESG now...

Ralph - process looked like you waited to involve us - first shooter gets to paint the bulls-eye target, so...

James Kempf - community was involved in problem statement document. we responded to the problem statement

Thomas - is this a design team fait accompli?

Ralph - yes, the target is now on the wall

Raj Patel - it takes so long to get anything done - everyone here has an agenda, so taking too long chases people away
  • can't build consensus - too many smart people
  • things have changed in last 3-4 years, and many people here started attending in last 3-4 years
  • we have a proposal on the table - do we have to take a couple of years to discuss it?
  • people are afraid of changing things
Alex - we are trying to change standards track, improve quality, etc. what should we do if we can't achieve consensus?

Raj - it's like writing code - every person's answer is different - let people review it, and then make a decision

Harald - at least we have consensus that we ought to do something...

John Wroclowski - assumption that we are actually a standards organization getting in the way of improving the Internet?

Steve Bellovin - we're codifying a lot of existing code, and that's not good

Greg Daley - WG chairs are really appreciated and doing mostly a really good job
  • in some cases, they do a lot of technical work because no one else will
  • interaction between chair-as-editor and chair-as-shepherd
  • WG chairs get to see work done - will they enjoy shepherding work?
Harald - if I had one wish for IETF, make it more fun

Barbara Fraser - I spent 3 painful years at an organization that was grasping at its last dollar (ISOC)
  • we now have .org, and things look better - let's look back here, at the IETF
  • we had a cushion a couple of meetings ago, but the cushion went away
  • last night's graph didn't track those numbers - what is our financial situation today?
  • we're getting ready to do an international meeting, and traditionally we have lower attendance and higher expenses at international meetings
  • will this finish us off?
Harald - Foretec's forecast loss for this year is $400K - that's half the cushion we have left
  • they forecast $120K next year. this isn't acceptable. ADVCOMM points out funding distinctions impractical and stupid
  • Koreans have guaranteed money for expenses, but we don't have a guarantee for attendees
  • Foretec won't go under in 2004, but this isn't good
Barbara - we have 2004 to get our finances in order?

Leslie - that's why we thought we needed to do ADVCOMM - and see expenses before we incur them
  • don't know what will happen in 2005, could be a lot better or worse, so we do have a year to get things on track
Bernard - we have been consistently underperforming budget estimates, and organizations that do this tend to keep doing it
  • knowing the situation becomes critical, and our organizational structure doesn't make this easy - there is no whole
  • would like to correct this in some way before end of 2004 - need to build working capital before life becomes hard
Barbara - just keep us informed - we all understand the people issues here and have a great stake in it

Randall Gellens - analogies to technology are misleading - these changes are drastic, but changes are desperately needed
  • three major areas of proposed change - we should go faster on one thing, slower on everything else
  • prefer early and quality document review - don't do everything at once
Donald Eastlake - surprised at scope of changes, too much chance of chaos, pick high runners
  • not afraid of WG chair changes proposed
  • never had an employer direct my work here (except one who wanted an interoperable protocol)
Dave Crocker - 11 years ago we had a revolution, but it was really small - nomcom and time limits, moved a decision process
  • that was all of the Kobe revolution - the scope of proposals yesterday is stunning
  • don't throw them all away,don't do them all at once - any change has unexpected side effects, and most of them are bad
  • what are the pieces? bite-sized? manageable-sized? do thing that make us work better
  • some pieces aren't well-understood - not even sure who supports them
Randy Bush - this organization isn't under financial control - getting real numbers isn't possible
  • we're not even a real organization. this needs to be pursued
James Polk - size of proposals was scary. agree about unexpected effects. membership to make nominations to nomcom?
  • poll the group out here, instead of silence? poll nomcom-qualified participants?
Leslie - in Problem Statement context?

James - putting 11 drafts forward, can't focus on Problem Statement with that load

Leslie - not enough input from the whole community? wasn't Problem Statement that?

James - but they didn't solve the problems?

Leslie - clearly, but proposals addressed specific Problem Statement sections
  • we're trying, but we're not there yet
James - didn't see consensus in the room at 10:00

Randy - restart POISED? (but no one remembers it)

Rob Austein - from Problem Statement, don't know what the goal is.
  • People going the same direction, but not the same place
  • we don't have a unified sense of purpose
James - do we see the same problems year after year?

(several) probably

Harald - we're getting closer

James - probably

Harald - suggestion is interesting

Tim Chown - increased responsibility in WGs is a good thing - use more WG chairs?

Scott Brownberg(?) - support last night's proposals, especially cross-area reviews - would like to help with tools

Ted - don't forget to talk to NOMCOM - please help Rich and his team build our team

Steve Bellovin - not only hire-and-fire - also feedback

Harald - same sentiment as Atlanta - changing airplane engines in flight, so do it carefully
  • we had some of the right ideas, but need to prioritize as a community (what's important? what's safe?)
  • it's the community that does the work - the leadership needs to make this easier
  • community needs good technology, good standards
  • going back to the IETF list and SOLUTIONS list (solutions-request@alvestrand.no)
  • if we can't find rough consensus, we can figure out what makes sense
  • we can't *not* act, we'll do the best we can

Valid HTML 4.01!


The IETF Mission
Advisory Committee (AdvComm) Report
AdvComm conclusions
What direction do we need to take to solve the issues facing the IETF ?
IETF Cross-functional Review
Increasing Authority and Responsibility of WG Chairs