IETF 59 Plenary Minutes
Wednesday Plenary - Harald
This is the first Korean IETF we've had, and the smoothest, most
well-run, and most fun IETF since Oslo
State of the Union tonight - Administrative matters, IESG Plenary, IAB
Plenary
IESG reporting on the state of their operations at plenary tonight
Summary Report
About 1300 attendees (even more paid) from 32 countries - many from
Asia, about a quarter from US
Somewhat weird - we had more people paid than actually showed up
("thank you for your support")
IPR documents are finished and published, XML2RFC supports the new RFC
boilerplates
126 RFCs approved since Minneapolis, about 100 published, doing
proactive followup on "old" documents
- Includes IPR, NOMCOM, Problem Statement RFCs
IETF 60 will be in San Diego, on August 1 - 6, 2004
Thanks to KT, Samsung, TTA, our NOC team, secretariat staff, and
multicast staff
Dae Young Kim on behalf of local hosts, gave us a photo tour -
highlights:
- Korean providers offering VDSL commercially for 50/75 Mb/s for
$13/month locally - download DVDs over the net in 10-15 minutes - if
you want to stress test your network products, bring them to us
- Vision includes "High-speed Portable Internet", or HPI, with 2
Mb/s for mobile users, and IPv6 is our future
Richard Draves for Nomcom report
2004 Nomcom selected six positions for IESG, another six for IAB
Thanks to everyone who volunteered, and everyone who agreed to serve if
selected
Fred Baker - Chair of ISOC BoT- IESG/IAB Transitions
- Selected Scott, Bert, David Kerrens, Alex, Steve, and Allison for
IESG
- Selected Leslie, Patrik, Eric, Bob, Pete, and Jonathan for IAB
- Thanks to Randy, Ned, Erik, Charlie, James, Mike for serving
Joyce Reynolds - RFC Editor Report
New Errata page, RFC Interest mailing list (sign up at http://www.rfc-editor.org)
New copyright and IPR statements now being inserted into all RFCs
New rule - all references should have corresponding textual citations,
also applies for IMPORTS section of MIBs
RFC Editor reports are available online at http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue-stats/queue-stats-index.html.
Queue is growing substantially, and adding staff to match this as
required
Doug Barton - IANA Report
Michelle had baby in January, says to say "hello"
IANA keeps parameters unique for RIRs, TLD managers, IETF, and .int
registry
November and December short months, January back in full swing, but
IANA is behind, and "important" requests are being prioritized
Adding significant senior staff and spending time visioning and
budgeting
Also working on a workflow system, to include a tracking system, to be
available for entire organization - hope to report by San Diego
Adding new office in Brussels, translations, IDNs at ICANN, languare
character variants, IPv6 roots, revamping the website
Q: IANA workflow interaction with IESG? working will Bill Fenner
Q: will generic workflow requirements slow things down? not with
current plans, please follow up offline, hoping code starts to show up
next month
Q: reason for office in Brussels? well, we're a global company, so...
Allison Mankin - IESG Report
IESG Report will probably be provided by e-mail in the future
IESG is grappling with overload and throughput
ID Tracker is a critical tool now, being used for statistics (developed
by Allison and Bill Fenner)
looking at publications requested vs documents approved - this is a
very good start for metrics
documents requested since Minneapolis matched documents finished
(approved by IESG), so queue not growing, but only about 20 percent
finished in same interval as requested, usually experimental or
informational documents
228 docs, 117 requested, 117 approved, 17 exited without being
published, only 23 requested and approved in same period
queue did not grow, but pipe is full - can use this for quantitative
goals, including measures of success for ICAR and PROTO efforts
documents arriving not ready for publication - makes pipe more full
than it needs to be, and things don't have to be this way
summaries going to Solutions mailing list (mailto:solutions-request@ietf.org)
would like to develop latency metric
Elliot Lear: glad PROTO experiments going forward, but something is
missing. we've lost our understanding of Proposed Standard - use it as
intended, maybe even ephemeral. Would like to make all this happen in a
short period of time - this is under discussion in NEWTRK, but we think
we can add cycles with early reviews, etc. we don't actually know what
the tradeoffs are yet.
Bob Hinden?: more approvals of non-standards track stuff than standards
track stuff? spending half your time reviewing non-IETF documents (or
at least half the documents are non-IETF documents - we need more
history to talk about this, but there are things we can do to
improve things
Ralph Droms: am seeing what I think is perfectionism on several fronts
that takes longer than it should for a document to get published - ICAR
is studying reviews
Aaron Falk: sympathize with search for metrics (it was hard for RFC
Editor, too) - might think about time in state statistics- but states
can be ambiguous (include both AD time and WG time in a single number).
James Polk: Not one WG informational requested since Minneapolis were
finished? No, this is a misunderstanding
IESG Plenary/Open Mike
David Meyer: Two questions for both IAB and IESG - individual
participation and consensus - are these still important? alternative is
participation by companies or governments, and voting... - we
believe in these values up to point, at which point the IESG makes a
decision - Harald semi-agrees that sometimes a decision is needed and
the IESG makes one, but does not agree that IESG can impose its will
against a working group - but does IESG try to get community consensus
when it makes a decision?
David Meyer: And, is NOMCOM and effective way to select our leadership?
- what does the community think? current revisions to NOMCOM didn't
touch the model in use - sense of room on changing the model? maybe a
quarter of the room thinks it should be changed
Bob Morgan: Our most successful RFC measured by references is 2119,
inside and outside IETF, used in lots of context where it might not
apply. Should there be a revision? has this come up in our process
work? - No, it has not, should it? - yes, and I'd like to hear from
others - share this concern when it's used in requirements documents,
for instance - also BCPs and requirements on future documents - have
seen upper-case keywords for operational advice, which the implementor
can't control in the real world - should we update 2119? no clear
choice in the room, with 90 percent abstains - limit 2119 to
standards-track? - intent of keywords is to ensure interoperability -
can Bob and Pekka write a draft?
Spencer Dawkins: Is this the right time to ask for plenary feedback on
draft-klensin-july14-00.txt? - ask tomorrow night during structural
change reporting
Leslie Daigle - IAB Plenary Report
Couple of major outputs - the ADVCOMM report from Minneapolis, and the
updated end-to-end document are out now
five confirmed candidates for ISOC Board of Trustees appointments - to
be announced next time
Vern Paxson - IRTF Plenary Report
- AAAArch finishing up documents, to close soon
- ASRG has new co-chair, charter with broader charter,
participating in NIST workshop, related MARID BoF tomorrow
- CFRG vetting proposed modification to IKEv2, discussing specific
attacks
- DTNRG enhanced implementations, with related DARPA program brewing
- IMRG proposing measurement protocols
- MOBOPTS chartered since last IETF, 180 people met today
- NMRG had two-day meeting in January
- P2P forming subgroups
- SMRG considering "pull" rather than "push" models.
- HIP RG and "identifier/locator split" RG to be formed
IAB Plenary/Open Mike
Interesting aside - Eric video'ed in over the net, missing Bernard
David Meyer:: Individual participation and consensus decision making? -
has something changed? - <reference to personal situation> L3VPN
is another example, not sure of other examples - WGs are supposed to
run by consensus, but some don't when a WG doesn't have a common goal -
what about other models? US legal system is adversarial, for instance -
we should bring these questions up periodically, but may never solve
them - it's rough consensus, not total consensus - L3VPN co-chair asked
for clarification. Not just one solution, so have to allow more than
one approach to go forward - disagreement with WGs need to come up in
WGs - hearing "I'm not going to do that" from document editors,
multiple times this week, is this normal? - consensus is a thin veil
over a complicated process that includes responsibility, judgement, and
leadership, and it's more complicated than we usually acknowledge -
trying to produce good technical documents, and sometimes saying "no"
is part of that - everyone's opinion needs to be heard and understood,
not agreed with -
David Meyer: Is NomCom the way to go? - don't give up on NomCom
|
