3 Wednesday Plenary

Thursday Plenary

Current Meeting Report

IETF 60 Plenary Wednesday Meeting Minutes IETF

IETF 60 Plenary Wednesday Meeting Minutes

Two plenary meetings were held at this IETF - a Wednesday night session (mostly about the present), and a Thursday night session (mostly about the future).

Hosts: Harald Alvestrad <harald@alvestrand.no> and Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>.

Minutes: These minutes were taken by Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> and cross-checked with the session jabber logs (available at http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/plenary@ietf.xmpp.org/, and please note that the sessions crossed "midnight", so they are split across three days, not just two).

The Jabber logs also include a Norwegian Saga tale (not reproduced here, but definitely worth laughing at).

Welcome, and introduction - Harald Alvestrand

We had  1511 registered, from 40 countries, about half attendess are from the US.

Fall IETF is in Washington, DC with Alcatel as sponsor

Thanks to the Tech Team - Jim Martin

This IETF had the network that almost wasn't - no local host, 80% of equipment lost in shipping,  with the current network built entirely out of last second replacement equipment from Cisco, Priority Networks, and others.

Peaks of 17 Mbps in both directions, with IPv6 and IPv4 multicast

Down from 35 G access points to 20 B access points, with three networks (Open, WEP, 802.1X)

Using 4 remote probes with AirMagnet for monitoring

1532 unique MACs, peak of 890 simultaneous users, peak of 143 associations on one AP

Network entirely done by volunteers this time, with entirely donated equipment (Cisco gave twice!)

Jon Postel Award (ISOC) - Steve Crocker

This year's recipient is Phil Gross, co-founder of the IETF, for his contribution to the Internet standardization process Steve presented Phil with a letter, globe, and check for $20,000 Phil spoke after being recognized:
  • Being chair of IETF is like being mayor of New York - 60 percent approval is good, but every good decision is a different 60 percent
  • IETF started different - idea was that technologists could work for the common good and base choices on technical merit
  • Our areas were working groups in the beginning - and everybody wanted to go to all the working group meetings
  • IETF is going through issues now, and they aren't small, but IETF has gone through difficult times before - remember the first time we invited industry? charged admission? created the IESG? the protocol wars? ANSI S3X3 could have been the IETF - then things could have been very different!

RFC Editor report

... was short, and is available at ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/IETFreports/aug01-report.pdf

Lots of stuff is getting published, but the backlog is creeping up since IETF 59

Experimenting with "office hours" at IETF meetings - drop by, if you have questions or issues

IANA report

... was short, and is available at ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/IETFreports/aug04-report.pdf

Huge improvement (order of magnitude decrease in latency) since IETF 59

IESG operations (Allison Mankin, Bill Fenner)

Reporting trends since 2003, measuring intervals between IETFs (so some measurement anomolies, because time period varies)

Data shows IESG and community both becoming more responsive - timeliness seems to be positive feedback loop

More WG recharters already this year than in all of 2003 - could we be paying more attention to charters?

Want to make monthly data available

Update from the PROTO (Process Team) work (Margaret and Henryk)

Home page for PROTO at http://www.mip4.org/proto

Goal is WG chair shepherding through document review and approval process

Small changes, don't require modifications to RFC 2026 or RFC 2418

AD still has review and approval roles - shepherding role is delegated

draft-ietf-proto-shepherding-00.txt describes shepherding role
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-01.txt describes process changes

Moving to a larger-scale experiment of this change

Who's in charge of the Internet: The WSIS Deliberations (Robert Kahn, CNRI)

US and other developed nations think things are just fine

Other developing nations think somebody needs to be in charge of the Internet - they think UN is best suited to provide leadership

Very decentralized system of cooperation, coordination and interaction

"If UN controlled ICANN, they would control the Internet"

Standardization mostly ignored, at least so far

Phase I of WSIS in December 2003 had about 12,000 attendees - finally took Internet Governance off the agenda

UN working group to look at this in preparation for Phase II of WSIS in November 2005, in Tunis

Interim activities taking place throughout 2004 - theme meetings on topics like spam

Bob asking for research community reengagement

IETF now in the gunsights

Difficult to get agreement on definition of "Internet Governance" - UN isn't monolithic, either

Lots of reading materials available

ICANN being attacked because they aren't part of the UN

IAB Chair report   - Leslie Daigle

Most recent published document (in queue) is on research funding (see IAB website at http://www.iab.org/)

Planning messaging workshop in September/October timeframe

Also working on liaison mechanics (see drafts) - will be coming out for community last call

IRTF Chair report - Vern Paxson

13 groups now in IRTF
  • ASRG related to MARID WG, meeting at this IETF
  • CryptoForum RG actually supports IETF WGs with crypto questions
  • DTNRG showing a lot of activity (and meeting at this IETF)
  • HIP RG working on indirection infrastructure, operation over NATs, rendezvous mechanisms
  • API MOBOPTS also working closely with IETF mobility WGs
  • Network Management Research Group focused on XML-based management, SMIng specs published
  • Routing RG focused on scalability, BGP stability, requirements for next-gen routing, history of routing protocols
  • Services Management actively looking for participants

IAB Open Plenary

No questions at all - amazing!

IESG Open Plenary

Are we doing better? (applause) - we're trying to get somewhere

Charlie Perkins - Recent changes in Internet Draft submission requirements - "semi-bounced" with "does not conform" - doesn't help discussion

Harald - We're tardy in reflecting RFC 3667/3668 changes, and even more tardy in telling you about the changes . We need to have the IPR copyright boilerplate right, even in IDs - this has already been a problem, and we're reacting

James Kempf - My experience is much better than several years ago (when working on SLP). There have been significant and important improvements

Brian Carpenter - Does OPS sub-area not develop protocols? Is this a real rule? 
Dave Kessens and Harald - In general, this is true, but we listen to reason

Matt Mathis - ID Nits document is really an RFC Nits document - formatting restrictions, etc. don't matter early in the process .
Harald - There are two documents, and we're not good at point out which is which - and the only real requirement is copyright

Pekka Savola - IDs are read and reviewed - make them as reviewable as possible

Valid HTML 4.01!

Slides

Agenda
The IETF60 Network
RFC Editor Report
IANA Report to the IETF
IESG Operations - Behind the Drafts
IESG Process (PROTO) Team
Who’s in Charge of the Internet: The WSIS Deliberations
IAB Plenary Report
IRTF Status Report