IETF 61 GenArea Open Area Meeting Minutes
IETF 61 General Area Open Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, November 9 at 1545-1645
Hosts: Harald Alvestrad <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Minutes: These minutes were taken by
Spencer Dawkins <email@example.com>.
introduction - Harald Alvestrand
The focus of this agenda is to get a couple of documents reviewed by a
wider audience than they otherwise would have been. I think both
are good ideas, but do not need a full WG treatment, or do not fit well
within a WG framework
Opening - agenda bashing
draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-06 - Henrik Levkowetz
- Henrik asked to broaden his presentation to cover upcoming Tools
- We flipped the order of agenda items to match presenters who were
actually in the room at the time
"Requirements for IETF Draft Submission
Proposed resolution: Adopt as necessary
and sufficient, with well-argued changes if needed, and instruct
secretariat to start implementing
Upcoming work -
- Goal is to reduce Secretariat overhead, post in seconds, not in
days, painlessly, consistently, reliably, and collecting
meta-information on the way
- Avoid surprises (drafts that don't look like we expect them to).
Accept XML, along with other formats.
- Providing web interface and e-mail submission, verify sender's
e-mail, check nits automatically, provide manual posting as a last
- Trial - 45-day goal is to remove Secretariat involvement from 70%
of submissions, 100 days adds XML support
- Publish as Informational RFC?
- Could launch 10 weeks from now at the earliest.
- Brian Carpenter - you're being too nice - why not require XML?
- A horrible thing - hard to get well-formed XML out of current tools.
- Larry Masinter - but we're trying to offload the Secretariat -
changing policies, is this in scope?
- Carl Malamud- requiring XML is really more reasonable than you
- Larry Masinter - we're encouraging XML submission by making it
- Spencer Dawkins - have XML submission work during "silent
Horrible idea, and out of scope. ("but I was JOKING!")
- Christian Huitema - but I don't use XML :-)
- Bill Strahm- Should be "all 00 drafts should be XML" as of some
date - other mechanisms will tend to disappear.
- Henrik Levkowetz
- but the canonical form is text - not reasonable to
- Bill Strahm - getting the formatting right any other way is a
- Margaret Wasserman - concerned about cutover dates - when do
procedures stop working? There will be an overlap.
- Avri Doria - is XML in one file? are includes OK? Will accept
references to reference library, but XML2RFC supports resolving
- Tim Chown - XML at secretariat? They actually only use the text
today, and not the XML at all.
- Sense of room? 1/3 support this draft, no one opposed.
More team meetings are needed - we have 15 ideas in
- Please comment on tool priority list
(http://tools.ietf.org/wiki/ToolPriotityList), especially on ordering,
and comment on firstname.lastname@example.org
- Lucy - Gen-ART reviewers worship the diffs tool - will this be
- Carl - would like us to look at mailing list management
(starting new ones, etc.)
- Paul - can we automate checking the archives to make sure that
messages are still being recorded. There's an operations management
component here, too.
- Pekka - how is this possible? Subscribe to the mailing list and
cross-check the archives. (Requires SPAM checking coordination, etc.).
A round of applause (for the team)
draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-04 - Pekka Savola
"Mentioning Intellectual Property Rights
Considerations in Last Calls"
Proposed resolution: Adopt as July14
Alternate resolution: Drop the idea
Sense of room
- Should mention the IPR status at WGLC, mandatory at IETF Last
- Spencer Dawkins - are WGLCs defined? They aren't required,
- Margaret Wasserman and Avri Doria - at least our BCPs do know
what WGLCs are..
- Concerned about more FUD in the process
- Larry Masinter - great idea with devils in the details. Incorrect
disclosures are worse than no disclosures. It took a year to change the
wording in our drafts
- Pekka Savrola - don't interpret the statements, just call
- Larry Masinter - what tools could we use to do this
- we have a tool as of last week to tie IDs to IPR disclosures.
- Larry Masinter - just add a statement pointing out where to check
Last Call text?
- Margaret Wasserman - concerned about logisitics and effectiveness
claims can arrive any time, right? Are we encouraging IPR
disputes during last call? We don't encourage other interesting topics
of discussion, won't this call attention to IPR at Last Call time? And
we have to be so careful about characterizing the existence of IPR,
because all we know about is what we've been told about...
- Christian Huitema - we don't think about IPR at submission time,
about it at implementation time (later).
- Larry Masinter - remind people about draft standard requirements
standard last calls, for instance?
- Harald Alvestrand - so the concern is that we are calling special
to IPR that's known at Last Call time?
- Brian Carpenter - I'm sympathetic in principle, but this is a red
outside agitators, and we've seen them before.
- Harald Alvestrand - are we making it harder to see IPR? Maybe
- Christian Huitema - if we change anything, make it easier
what applies to a specific draft.
- (Harald gave a quick demo of an IPR disclosures search tool here)
- Lars-Erik Jonsson - is this too late in the process? Should we
IPR disclosures? We're supposed to announce them to ADs, authors, WG
- Margaret Wasserman - IPR is only one of many decisions a working
community needs to make.
- Larry Masinter - can we add this pointer to automated submissions?
- Brian Carpenter - duty of evaluating IPR claims actually falls on
the WG -
is that the right policy? Do our procedures support this?
- Should this draft be adopted as a process the IETF should follow?
about three people.
- draft should be removed from consideration? about twenty people.
- should do something about this problem? almost certainly
(applause for Pekka)