3 Thursday Plenary

Wednesday Plenary

Current Meeting Report

Administrative Plenary
19 November 2008

Agenda

After the break, the plenary resumed to cover these agenda topics:

   4. Postel Award
   5. Reporting
      a. IETF Chair Report
      b. IAB Chair Report
      c. IRTF Chair Report
      d. IAOC Chair Report
      e. Trust Chair Report
      f. IAD Report
      g. NomCom Chair Report
      h. NOC Report
   6. IAOC Open Mic
   7. IESG Open Mic
   8. IAB Open Mic

The presentations from the 10th Postel Award and from the reports
are included in the proceedings.  These minutes focus on the
three open mic portions of the plenary.


IAOC Open Mic

(Sam Hartman) The topic is IPR.  I understand the need for trademark
policing. We need to tell people that use IETF trademarks that we
know they are doing so, and that we are willing to let them continue
if they are reasonable.  This was a good approach.

(Sam) Now, turning to copyrights. We're granting more rights to the
IETF Trust under the new IPR policy publised in RFC 5378.  What happens
if I am updating an old document, with the old license, or I change
jobs, and due to an employment contract I don't own the license?

(Russ) For changes in the IETF Standards Process, I am not aware of
any concerns.  The new IPR policy was the product of the IPR WG.

(Sam) So, we don't keep track of the rights? 99% of the old documents
were developed under the previous IPR policy, which gave fewer rights.
I, as the author of an update, can't give you rights that weren't
provided in the old document.

(Russ) There is not a problem for the IETF Standards Process, right?

(Sam) If I write new text, the IETF Trust gets rights to sublicense
to new parties under liberal rules.

(Russ) And, those rights also stay with the authors.  The IETF Trust
license gives all of the rights that are needed for the IETF Standards
Process.

(Sam) But you're not keeping track of the old rights.  I don't have to
do anything but use the new boilerplate.  However, my employer might
not have granted the rights required by RFC 5378 that extend beyond
the IETF Standards Process.

(Margaret Wasserman) At some point, someone wants to make a new type
of IPv6 address.  Suppose I can't find Bob Hinden.  How can I give his
rights to the IETF Trust for the expanded license when all he gave
before were the more restrictive rights?

(Russ) This is not a problem for the IETF process; it is just a problem
for the expanded rights.

(Jonne Soininen) We will need to look at this issue.

(Dave Crocker) With smaller meeting attendance, higher fees, an interim
meeting, and companies changing travel paradigm, the IETF needs to eat
our own dog-food, and increase remote meetings.

(Jonne) We have been using the only instrument that we have.  We are
looking at different ways to fund the whole operation, but there are
not many other easy possibilities.

(Russ) There was a lot of work going into a RAI area interim meeting for
January 2009.  Our experience with the INT area interim meeting was that
it was a significant burden on the organizers.  We want to experiment
with shifing this burden away from the WG chairs to the Secretariat.
This meeting, BEHAVE is scheduled to meet for 7 hours.  This is one
example of a WG that needs more face-to-face meeting time.

(Olaf Kolkman) I took all my hats off.  I'm asking John, reading that
all pre-contracts should be shown to the community.  I don't have a
full mapping of IAOC docs in my mind.  The RFI will give community
enough opportunity for review.

(John Klensin) Leslie has comments.  The intention of the community at
the time the IAOC was organized was that anything secret would be
limited.  If you were to expose to the community at the same time as
the vendors, and the community said wrong questions, bad document, then
the schedule to get out the RFI would be shot.

(Leslie Daigle) There is a nicety in exposing the RFI and reaching
consensus.  No problem exposing, as long as it is understood that the
IAOC has the difficult management task.

(John) Not expecting community consensus, but should have time to
comment.

(Olaf) If we announce and post for comments...

(John) I think the community needs a meaningful opportunity to review
before sending out to vendors.  If the community violently disagrees,
the IAOC need to be able to revise the RFI before sending it to the
vendors.

(Russ) The timeline for RFP is important.  We must put the RFP out in
April 2009, otherwise we won't have an RFC Editor contract lined up
before the current one expires.  We have already excercised the only
extension in the current contract.

(John) No one in this room, except the IAOC and the IAB, have had an
opportunity to change or slow the timeline.  I have sympathy, but its
somewhat limited.

(Scott Bradner) Ed Juskevicius mentioned trademark policing in the
IETF Trust Chair report.  Note that this is not a blanket requirement.
If using the character string "IETF" and not at all related to the
Internet Engineering Task Force, there is not requirement to go after
them.

(Jonne) There are two policing actions we know of, and both involve the
IETF logo.

(Russ) That is the picture on the slide ...

(Jonne) We will not ask that they stop.

(Scott) Interim meeting and 7 hours for BEHAVE ... Aren't we going down
the wrong path?  I spend reasonable amount of time in newbie training
on how the work is done on the mailing list.  You seem to be going down
a path that has proven to be difficult in other standards bodies.

(Russ) It is a proposed experiment.  We'll see how it goes.

(Leslie) Two points of clarification to John's comments.  On RFC Editor
functions, IASA supports the IAB to the extent that the IAB asks.  With
regard to the RFP subcommittee, at least in my understanding, it has
some pretty specific responsibilities to gather advice, but the
decisions rest with the IAB and IAOC.

(Olaf) I don't know if I have publicly posted the RFP subcommittee
charter.  I will do that.

(Margaret) On the money topic, two observations that may be obvious.
One of the ways that companies sponsor IETF work without having to get
a big budget, taking it out of the engineering budget by hosting an
interim meeting.  I have sponsored interim meetings.  I could never
get my company to host a reception or a full IETF meeting, but I got
them to host an interim meeting.

(Russ) I understand, and there is no attempt to try and stifle those
small interim meetings.

(Margaret) The one I hosted was 2 days and 100 people -- not too small.
The problem with the money is not just that we're charging for people
to come here.  We haven't found out a way to align our income to our
value.  We are valuable to people who don't pay to come here.  Our
income is aligned with number of volunteers.  We should look at a
consultant.

(Lynn St.Amour) ISOC has hired a consultant.  We have an additional
revenue stream committee that started meeting about 6 month ago. ISOC
hired a COO and a VP of communications, so ISOC is now in a better
position to put more resources behind those activities.


IESG Open Mic

(Barry Leiba) Russ put up numbers -- 98 last calls in 15 weeks.  IESG
people haf to read all of those.  Its a lot of work, and we should
thank them.

(Fred Templin) I have a document in late stages of publication.  It is
defining a new Internet protocol.  Could the IESG approve an IANA
number for this?

(Mark Townsley) This is draft-templin-seal?

(Fred) Yes.

(Mark) That document came to the IESG as experimental.  The IANA
considerations were clear that it would be experimental, and that it
would use the numbers that have already been assigned for experimental
use.

(Fred) We went back and forth on this.  I am wondering if we can go
forward with an IANA number.

(Mark) The IESG did a review as required by RFC 3932.  This document is
part of the Independent Submision Stream.  When the document went back
to the RFC Editor, I believe you requested the change of the marking.
But that was after the IESG already looked at it.  You would need to
get IETF consensus for an IANA number assignment in that space.

(Fred) draft-templin-seal would work to solve the problem discussed on
the list yesterday.

(Mark) It would confuse firewalls in the middle.  We would need to
understand seal better, fixing one problem often causes others.  At
this point, experimental level is fine.

(Jari Arkko) Fred and I have been talking about AD sponsor of this
document.  The advice I gave was to immediately submit the experimental,
then could talk about the IETF stream document.  It is not enough that
just you request publication.  You need more support from the community.
You need to demonstrate some level of interest from the community.

(Fred) On firewalls, UDP option...

(Mark) We're getting into design.  For now you've got your experimental
document.

(Paul Hoffman) I am very concerned about anything that happens after
IETF Last Call with a change in status.  I put review of experimental
documents very low in priority.

(Russ) This is not an IETF stream document. It is not being sponsored by
an IESG member.

(Mark) The fact that publication of an Experimental RFC was requested
did weigh heavily in the RFC 3932 review.

(Russ) But, there was not IETF Last Call on this document.

(Paul) It is important for us in the room to know what's happening.

(Mark) That is why I take the proposal to change from experimental to
informaitional seriously.

(Lars Eggert) I read the document, clearly going to experimental, thought
it was reasonable to run as experiment.  If you want a real IANA-assigned
code point that is a very different form of review.

(Fred) If that is an option...

(Lars) It is an option, but would cause me to approach the document
review very differently.

(Mark) and get that IETF Last Call.

(Scott) Is this an IP protocol request?

(Fred) IP protocol, UDP port, ...

(Mark) the IP protocol is this key.

(Scott) RFC says protocols numbers can be approved. I think this could or
could not get an assignment just because of the status of the document.

(Mark) I did dig up the policies and put in an email.  It was along the
lines of IETF consensus, though it could be overridden by expert review,
along those lines...

(Pete Resnick) Back to what Scott said to the IAOC.  This is a question
to the room, no idea what the outcome will be.  I don't want to talk
about a particular WG.  How many people here have spoken at the mic this
week.



(Pete) How many would consider that they somehow changed the text of a
documnet?



(Pete) We had an idea at lunch, needed a whiteboard.  What I see is a
lot of WGs with presentations but less discussion.  These are
presentations that should be sent to lists before even getting face
time.  Statements that they are "not ready to discuss" should partly
come from list members.  I think ADs and WG Chairs are encouraging the
behavior of presentation by not requiring slides ahead of time.
There may be silence for 1-2 WG meetings.

(Barry) There are too many presentations of status of documents that
don't need discussion.  There is too much "where we are," but not stuff
that needs to be worked.  It is a waste of face-to-face time.

(Aaron Falk) I think Pete's point is good.  WG Chairs are the front
lines of the IETF.  They develop agendas that make best use of face
time.  We have tools for making new WG Chairs, but the community can
help by pointing out good stuff.  It is hard work to look at what is
going on on a list, lead a discussion, and put controversial points on
the table.  It is easier to say "how to fill 2 hours, 5 documents, that
is 20 min each."  But it is a poor use of time.  The alternative is
harder.  ADs could push WG Chairs a little in advance.  They could push
for a call to see what the issues are.  We need to teach each other,
and model best practices.

(Dan Romascanu) There are a few things, kind of a congress discussion.
Enforcing too strict rules can be a problem; we don't want to forbid
the lunch discussion.

(Pete) It is not about discussions on the agenda, it is presentations
on the agenda.

(Dan) In the OPS area we are having meetings and discussions to prepare
for upcoming IETFs.  We are discussing agendas in advance.  There are
recommendations, but at the end of the day the WG Chairs have different
styles and need to be empowered.

(Magnus Westerlund) Agree, this is common task we need to work on.  But
don't want to put it on my shoulder.  I don't have time for all the
training.  I can't micromanage; I'm not good at it anyway.

(Lars) I agree with a lot of what Pete said.  I have some WGs that are
driven by presentations.  If the WG is active and people know whats
going on, can have discussions.  But some need to get status before
having the discussion.  I agree that sometimes status can take too much
time.  It seems to happen with some WGs and not others.  I would like
to find out what the underlying difference is.

(David Ward) I've been in WG session this week where time was used
effectively.  Issues were driven off of presentations.  The problem was
clear, and it was clear what decisions need to be made.  I hope he is
talking about the 6 slide status presentations.  I had open issues.
I think this came together at 11 PM on Sunday night, not in advance.

(Eric) Margaret sounds like a great WG Chairs lunch.  From an ADs
perspective, I don't want to be micromanaged.  But in the huge WGs, it
would be good if some of the ADs could mentor the WG Chairs.  Or others
who are good at this ...

(Jeff Hutzelman) As a WG Chair, I have been trying for many IETFs to
increase the signal to noise ratio in my meetings.  No more than a few
minutes for document status.  As much time as possible on substantive
discussion and open issues.  We do require presentations in advance.
I have been fairly aggressively been telling people -- show slides,
what are the issues?  If you are not asking the WG a question, then
you are not getting meeting time.

(Charlie Perkins) I don't understand why getting stuff done early is
the focus.  I am deadline driven.  Many others are too.  Some do their
best work based on deadlines.  I think we need to calm down on late
stuff, and focus on getting stuff done.  I had the presentation done
1.5 hours ahead of time.  To many people that is last minute, but it is
getting results.


IAB Open Mic

No comments.

Slides

Agenda
Postel Award
IETF Chair Report
IAB Chair Report
IRTF Chair Report
IAOC Chair and IAD Report
IETF Trust Chair Report
NomCom Chair Report
NOC Report
Note Well