IETF 77 Administrative Plenary
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Minutes by Karen O'Donoghue
Agenda
======
1. Welcome
2. Reporting
- IETF Chair Report
- NOC Report
- IAOC Chair & IAD Reports
- Trust Chair Report
- NomCom Chair Report
3. Thank Outgoing IESG and IAOC Members
4. Recognition
5. Introduce Transitional RFC Series Editor
6. Introduce Independent Submissions Editor
7. Introduce Incoming IAOC Member
8. IAOC Open Mic
9. Introduce Incoming IESG Members
10. IESG Open Mic
Welcome, Russ Housley
=====================
Slides: plenaryw-0
Russ Housley called the IETF Administrative Plenary to order. He
presented the agenda and the IETF Note Well slide.
Reporting
=========
IETF Chair Report, Russ Housley
-------------------------------
Slides: plenaryw-10, plenaryw-2
Russ Housley provided the IETF Chair Report. He reminded attendees
that there was no host for this meeting. The program to buy a green
dot has been entertaining and highlights the lack of a sponsor. The
chair report detailed the IETF 77 attendance numbers and the IETF,
RFC Editor, and IANA activity since IETF 76. Russ discussed the new
IETF Outcomes Wiki and solicited input. He thanked the participants
in the code sprint and detailed some of the accomplishments. Finally,
he summarized upcoming meetings.
SIDN, the host for the upcoming meeting in Maastricht provided a short
introduction to the city. He noted that there will be a social and
t-shirt.
NOC Report, Eric Thompson and Ray Irwin
---------------------------------------
Slides: plenaryw-3
Eric Thompson and Ray Irwin from Swisscom gave the NOC report detailing
the design and performance of the IETF network. They summarized some
key issues encountered during first half of the week.
IAOC Chair & IAD Reports, Bob Hinden and Ray Pelletier
------------------------------------------------------
Slides: plenaryw-11
Bob Hinden, as IAOC Chair, provided the IAOC report. He covered the
financial results for 2009, the 2010 budget, and the financial concerns
resulting from the Anaheim meeting.
Ray Pelletier, as IAD, discussed the status of ongoing contract
activities and the future meeting plans. He acknowledged staff,
volunteers, and sponsors.
Trust Chair Report, Marshall Eubanks
------------------------------------
Slides: plenaryw-4
Marshall Eubanks provided a summary of the IETF Trust accomplishments
since IETF 76. The big news is that the IETF Trust adopted the new
Trust Legal Provisions (TLP 4.0) breaking a logjam of almost a year in
the publication of independent submissions. Marshall reminded attendees
that blue sheets are used as physical proof of attendance at IETF
meetings.
NomCom Chair Report, Mary Barnes
--------------------------------
Slides: plenaryw-5
Mary Barnes provided the report from the recently concluded NomCom
activity. She summarized the appointments and thanked all those who
helped in the process, including both the voting and non-voting
members of the NomCom, members of the community willing to serve,
and the AMS Secretariat staff. She discussed some observations and
issues encountered during the process. A full report is available
on the IETF website in an Internet-Draft.
Thank Outgoing IESG/IAOC Members, Russ Housley and Lynn St. Amour
=================================================================
Slides: plenaryw-6
Russ Housley and Lynn St. Amour recognized outgoing IAOC and
IESG members:
- Fred Baker -- IAOC: 2007 - 2010
- Ross Callon -- RTG AD: 2006 - 2010
- Lisa Dusseault -- APP AD: 2006 - 2010
- Cullen Jennings -- RAI AD: 2006 - 2010
- Pasi Eronen -- SEC AD: 2008 - 2010
- Magnus Westerlund -- TSV AD: 2006 - 2010
Recognition, Russ Housley and Lynn St. Amour
============================================
Slides: plenaryw-7
Bob Braden was recognized for his years as service as RFC Editor and
for invaluable support the transition. He received a standing ovation
from the attendees.
Lynn St. Amour reminded attendees the call for nominations for the
Jonathan B. Postel Service Award opens tomorrow.
Transitional RFC Series Editor, Glenn Kowack
============================================
Slides: plenaryw-8
Glenn Kowack provided an overview of what he will be doing in the next
several months as the Transitional RFC Series Editor. He talked about
the method he plans to use and the schedule for the effort.
Independent Submissions Editor, Nevil Brownlee
==============================================
Slides: plenaryw-9
Nevil Brownlee discussed the Independent Submissions Editor role and
process. He encouraged more academic/bridge submissions.
Introduce Incoming IAOC Member, Ray Pelletier
=============================================
Ray Pelletier introduced Eric Burger as a new member of the IAOC and
provided Disney mouse ear hats for all the IAOC members.
IAOC Open Mic
=============
In the spirit of selling green dots, there was a suggestion from the
floor that another possible revenue source is to sell microphone time.
Spencer Dawkins brought up the topic of possible lobbying by NomCom
candidates now that we are moving to an open list of candidates. Mary
Barnes was invited to join the IAOC on stage to respond to the question.
The general feeling is that lobbying in this context is not effective.
The NomCom requires detailed and constructive data. Lobbying doesn't
really satisfy this need.
Pete Resnick mentioned that he thought the RFID experiment done in
Hiroshima was really useful and was wondering if anyone has looked
into making it a permanent addition to the meeting infrastructure. He
also asked if anyone had looked further into legal issues or using the
technology to support the blue sheets. A hum was taken to see if the
attendees thought we should look into adding this capability to the
meeting infrastructure. There were significant positive responses. The
host for IETF 76 did a significant amount of work to enable that
experiment so there are several issues to be investigated.
Derek Atkins asked about the ongoing day pass experiment. It seems
counter productive if we are trying to reinforce the concept of the
IETF being a full week. This question started a lengthy discussion on
the day pass experiment. Several people participated in the
conversation including Barry Leiba, Cullen Jennings, Brian Carpenter,
Robert Sparks, Dan Romanascau, Eric Rescola, Lucy Lynch, Melinda
Shore, David Harrington, and others. A number of points were made
including:
- Day passes prevent more cross area review and participation in
additional working groups which is often beneficial to the
development of a single working group's deliverables.
- Day passes are counterproductive to the stated policy that the
IETF is a full week and rescheduling can occur.
- Day passes negatively impact the ability to have additional
discussions and high bandwidth interactions outside the actual
working group meeting. New attendees may not realize that is an
important part of the productivity achieved during an IETF
meeting week.
- Day passes have a negative impact on the number of hallway
conversations that occurred.
- If day passes had not been available, would the people who used
them: 1) not come; 2) come for the full week; or 3) come for a
day and paid the full registration fee?
- Day passes may be helpful for people who want to start to
participate in the IETF.
- Day passes allow more local participation.
- The demographics of day pass attendees will likely be different
outside the US.
- How do day passes impact NomCom eligibility?
- Other options might be to provide a one-time ability to buy a
day pass or to provide a new attendee discount.
- Day passes may encourage participation from some communities
that we would really like to be here.
- Will using a day pass provide a new attendee with an accurate
perspective on what really goes on in the IETF?
- It was really valuable to have some of the attendees that used
day passes to attend this meeting. They were key to discussions
in certain working groups.
- Who are using day passes? Originally envisioned for new attendees
or local attendees. Are some working group chair and document
editors using them?
The conclusion of the discussion is that we need to clarify our
objectives for the day passes and gather further data on how they
are being used and their impact.
Dave Crocker, as a NomCom member this year, thanked Mary Barnes for
the excellent job that she did running the NomCom this year.
Introduce Incoming IESG Members
===============================
Russ Housley introduced the incoming IESG members:
- Peter Saint-Andre -- APP AD
- Stewart Bryant -- RTG AD
- Gonzalo Camarillo -- RAI AD
- David Harrington -- TSV AD
- Sean Turner -- SEC AD
Old and new IESG members took the stage for the IESG Open Mic.
IESG Open Mic
=============
Barry Leiba asked Lars if he really thought that all of the document
editors should be expected to come to the meeting. Lars clarified
that what he intended was that if you were coming here you would have
an interest in staying as long as possible.
Dave Crocker, as a member of this year's NomCom, asked for a discussion
to be started to address some of the issues raised. Russ Housley
indicated that there are no short answers to these issues. The IESG has
read the NomCom Chair's report, and there are at least two IESG retreat
topics defined based on that report.
Pete Resnick raised the topic of the pending appeal to the IESG. Pete
feels that current appeal is being taken too seriously, and it would be
a terrible mistake to spend any more time on it. The appeal is barely
coherent and never clearly states what is being appealed. The mere
length of the document constitutes a denial of service attack on the
IESG. Russ pointed out that the first thing they did upon receiving the
appeal is to post it publicly and solicit input from the community. The
IESG has been receiving input from the community and listening to that
input.
Thomas Narten pointed out that we are missing a step in the appeals
process that asks the question whether or not the appeal is well formed,
readable, and has some support from the community.
Ted Hardie, as an ISOC Board member, is worried that the IESG will not
take the appeal seriously. He is also worried about the IESG dismissing
the appeal because it is not well formed. To his knowledge, the IESG
has never stated what constitutes a well formed appeal. He is also
concerned about the requirement for community support because often a
lone individual is right.
Dave Crocker suggests that the IESG not work on the appeal. Dave
disagrees with Ted on every single point. We do have requirements for
an appeal. It is unreasonable for certain actors in the IETF to put a
burden on others.
Scott Bradner, as the person responsible for the non-implemented
appeals process, believes you can just say the appeal doesn't meet the
requirements of RFC 2026.
Discussion continued on the merits of the appeal, the state of the
appeal process definition, and the concern about IESG time being
wasted. These comments will be taken into account by the IESG in
handling the appeal.
Lucy Lynch commented for the record that she has been subscribed again
to ietf-honest mail list. She immediately unsubscribed and saved a copy
of her unsubscribe notice. She does not want to be on this mailing list.
With no further questions from the floor, the meeting was adjourned.
|
