Considerations for Having a Successful Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) Session
draft-narten-successful-bof-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko |
2012-08-22
|
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Russ Housley |
2008-12-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-12-03
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-12-03
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-12-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-12-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2008-12-03
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-12-03
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2008-12-03
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-12-03
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-narten-successful-bof-04.txt |
2008-11-07
|
04 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06 |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed by Amy Vezza |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] I saw constructive Last Call comments from Spencer Dawkins, Dave Crocker, and Gonzalo Camarillo. I have not see responses to any of … [Ballot discuss] I saw constructive Last Call comments from Spencer Dawkins, Dave Crocker, and Gonzalo Camarillo. I have not see responses to any of them. Please provide responses, even if it is to indicate the reason that their suggestions are not going to be accepted. Jari has one small concern that deserves attention. The document advocates early preparation for the BOF. However, the timelines listed in the document do not match current reality: As described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is approximately one month prior to the IETF meeting. ... There is a firm deadline (about 1 month prior to the meeting) for submitting a formal BOF scheduling request. The IETF 73 dates, it says: September 15, Monday - Cutoff date ... for preliminary BOF proposals September 29, Monday - Cutoff date for ADs to schedule BOFs (IAB - IESG BOF Call on October 3rd) October 6, Monday - Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs Meeting: 16-21 November 2008 Suggestion: s/((one)|(1)) month/six weeks/ |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-06
|
04 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would … [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would like to discuss on the call before balloting Yes, however. One of the points of the document is to advocate early preparation for the BOF. However, the timelines listed in the document do not match current reality: As described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is approximately one month prior to the IETF meeting. ... There is a firm deadline (about 1 month prior to the meeting) for submitting a formal BOF scheduling request. Yet when I look at IETF-73 dates, it says: September 15, Monday - Cutoff date ... for preliminary BOF proposals September 29, Monday - Cutoff date for ADs to schedule BOFs (IAB - IESG BOF Call on October 3rd) October 6, Monday - Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs Meeting: 16-21 November 2008 By my count that is six, seven or nine weeks, depending on what event you count to. We could talk about whether our timelines or the document are wrong (I'm more in the former camp, personally). But the fact of the matter is that the document gives a too rosy picture about the deadlines. I would suggest an edit: s/((one)|(1)) month/six weeks/ |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would … [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would like to discuss on the call before balloting Yes, however. One of the points of the document is to advocate early preparation for the BOF. However, the timelines listed in the document do not match current reality: As described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is approximately one month prior to the IETF meeting. ... There is a firm deadline (about 1 month prior to the meeting) for submitting a formal BOF scheduling request. Yet when I look at IETF-73 dates, it says: September 15, Monday - Cutoff date ... for preliminary BOF proposals September 29, Monday - Cutoff date for ADs to schedule BOFs (IAB - IESG BOF Call on October 3rd) October 6, Monday - Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs Meeting: 16-21 November 2008 By my count that is six or eight weeks, depending on what event you count to. We could talk about whether our timelines or the document are wrong (I'm more in the former camp, personally). But the fact of the matter is that the document gives a too rosy picture about the deadlines. I would suggest an edit: s/((one)|(1)) month/six weeks/ |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would … [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would like to discuss on the call before balloting Yes, however. One of the points of the document is to advocate early preparation for the BOF. However, the timelines listed in the document do not match current reality: As described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is approximately one month prior to the IETF meeting. ... There is a firm deadline (about 1 month prior to the meeting) for submitting a formal BOF scheduling request. Yet when I look at IETF-73 dates, it says: September 15, Monday - Cutoff date ... for preliminary BOF proposals September 29, Monday - Cutoff date for ADs to schedule BOFs (IAB - IESG BOF Call on October 3rd) October 6, Monday - Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs Meeting: 16-21 November 2008 By my count that is six or eight weeks, depending on to what even you count. We could talk about whether our timelines or the document are wrong (I'm more in the former camp, personally). But the fact of the matter is that the document gives a too rosy picture about the deadlines. I would suggest an edit: s/((one)|(1)) month/six weeks/ |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would … [Ballot discuss] This is a great document, and needs to be published as an RFC ASAP. I do have one small concern that I would like to discuss on the call before ballot yes, however. One of the points of the document is to advocate early preparation for the BOF. However, the timelines listed in the document do not match current reality: As described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is approximately one month prior to the IETF meeting. ... There is a firm deadline (about 1 month prior to the meeting) for submitting a formal BOF scheduling request. Yet when I look at IETF-73 dates, it says: September 15, Monday - Cutoff date ... for preliminary BOF proposals September 29, Monday - Cutoff date for ADs to schedule BOFs (IAB - IESG BOF Call on October 3rd) October 6, Monday - Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs Meeting: 16-21 November 2008 By my count that is six or eight weeks, depending on to what even you count. We could talk about whether our timelines or the document are wrong (I'm more in the former camp, personally). But the fact of the matter is that the document gives a too rosy picture about the deadlines. I would suggest an edit: s/((one)|(1)) month/six weeks/ |
2008-11-06
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] This is a very useful document, and I support publication as an RFC. I believe the draft would be improved if a couple … [Ballot comment] This is a very useful document, and I support publication as an RFC. I believe the draft would be improved if a couple of issues, but given the document's proven utility as-is, I cannot justify a discuss. I have issues with both the structure and content of item 3) "asking the wrong question" in Section 4, "Pitfalls". First on structure, Item 3) includes a half page list of the *right* questions to ask during a BOF. I think this is extremely important material, and entirely misplaced. I believe it should be moved to Section 3, "The BOF Itself". The remaining material under item 3) is focused on the problem of wrong questions, and should stay in Section 4. The following is an excerpt from the opening paragraph in item 3): Often, BOF organizers feel like there is a need to ask the question "shall we form a WG?". But, unless the question is clear, properly scoped, etc., asking such a question serves no purpose. Even worse, such questions can demonstrate that there is no consensus (yet) for the work and thus no WG should be formed. WRT content, I have real issues with the last sentence in the quoted text, "Even worse..." Demonstrating that consensus does not exist (yet) is part of the process and does not preclude WG formation in the future. The problem with the "wrong questions" is that they do not reveal anything about why consensus does not exist so there is no way to make progress. The seven right questions seemed to focus on aspects of the problem in a piecewise fashion, establishing areas of consensus and identifying areas where additional work is needed. The wrong questions do not serve to focus future discussion where it is needed. I think a few additional sentences on wrong questions could convey this more clearly. |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] I think this a very useful document, and I'm balloting "Yes". Some thoughts that perhaps could be considered if the document is updated … [Ballot comment] I think this a very useful document, and I'm balloting "Yes". Some thoughts that perhaps could be considered if the document is updated (but these are not absolutely necessary by any means): Would it be useful to say more about what happens after the face-to-face BOF session? For example, in the case of ALTO, the BOF session did not reach consensus about a specific charter. Apparently, some people were surprised that the discussion continued (and reach rough consensus) on the mailing list -- I guess they were expecting a 2nd BOF about the topic. IMHO having a 2nd BOF is probably not very useful if there hasn't been any discussion on the mailing lists in between -- but it does occasionally happen anyway. If you have some experiences or advice to share about this topic, I think that would be a valuable addition to the document. Another topic is how to define the scope. In several places, the document emphasizes focusing more on the problem being solved, than the (possibly multiple) solution proposals. While I agree in theory, applying this advice can IMHO be difficult in practice (and has been the source of problems for BOFs I've seen). One aspect is that if there already are detailed protocol specifications as Internet-Drafts, the authors of those drafts are not necessarily very good in answering the question "what's the problem being solved by your draft" in a way that others would grasp. Or at least the answer might be very specific to their favorite solution. A second aspect is that one person's problem can be somebody else's solution. If the draft authors say they're solving A, you can always ask what's the problem B being solved by solving A? And so on -- this quest for the next-higher-level goal/problem could in theory continue indefinitely, but in my experience, it's not easy to determine what level is the best for BOF success. For example, in the OAUTH BOF in IETF73, my guess (I haven't seen any charter proposal text, so this is a wild guess, in fact) is that the BOF would focus on whether IETF should start work on "OAuth 1.1" (something improving the current OAuth 1.0, but not radically different). That's probably more likely to result in success than starting from blank slate problem "how can one web site access your data on another site" (given this problem, it's certainly possible to imagine a wide range of solutions quite different from OAuth 1.0, reusing whatever your favourite security technology is -- X.509 proxy certificates, SAML, SPKI, Keynote delegation, Kerberos, identity-based crypto, Liberty ID-WSF, WS-*, elliptic curves, ...). I don't have good suggestions on what the document should exactly say, other than perhaps highlight that the "problem" can be defined in many ways, and both making it too wide (making the solution space too large to be manageable and discussable in a 2-3 hour session) or too narrow (making the solution space narrow to a single existing draft) can lead to unsuccessful BOF. Some additional minor comments: In couple of places, the document says the deadline for scheduling BOFs is approximately one month prior to the IETF meeting; for recent IETFs (IETF 72 and 73), it's been 6 or 7 weeks. The document has several URLs pointing to pages on www.ietf.org. It's quite possible that the currently ongoing website redesign project will break them. (But I'm not suggesting removing the URLs, and I don't have a good solution in mind, either.) |
2008-11-05
|
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-11-04
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-11-04
|
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] [This is a very useful document, and I support publication as an RFC. That said, I do have a couple of issues with … [Ballot comment] [This is a very useful document, and I support publication as an RFC. That said, I do have a couple of issues with the draft. I have not decided whether I believe these issues rise to the level of a discuss, so I have documented my issues as a comment for now. Hopefully, this will stimulate discussion and perhaps resolution before the call, and help me decide whether to ballot No Obj or Discuss.] I have issues with both the structure and content of item 3) "asking the wrong question" in Section 4, "Pitfalls". First on structure, Item 3) includes a half page list of the *right* questions to ask during a BOF. I think this is extremely important material, and entirely misplaced. I believe it should be moved to Section 3, "The BOF Itself". The remaining material under item 3) is focused on the problem of wrong questions, and should stay in Section 4. The following is an excerpt from the opening paragraph in item 3): Often, BOF organizers feel like there is a need to ask the question "shall we form a WG?". But, unless the question is clear, properly scoped, etc., asking such a question serves no purpose. Even worse, such questions can demonstrate that there is no consensus (yet) for the work and thus no WG should be formed. WRT content, I have real issues with the last sentence in the quoted text, "Even worse..." Demonstrating that consensus does not exist (yet) is part of the process and does not preclude WG formation in the future. The problem with the "wrong questions" is that they do not reveal anything about why consensus does not exist so there is no way to make progress. The seven right questions seemed to focus on aspects of the problem in a piecewise fashion, establishing areas of consensus and identifying areas where additional work is needed. The wrong questions do not serve to focus future discussion where it is needed. I think a few additional sentences on wrong questions could convey this more clearly. |
2008-10-27
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] I saw constructive Last Call comments from Spencer Dawkins, Dave Crocker, and Gonzalo Camarillo. I have not see responses to any of … [Ballot discuss] I saw constructive Last Call comments from Spencer Dawkins, Dave Crocker, and Gonzalo Camarillo. I have not see responses to any of them. Please provide responses, even if it is to indicate the reason that their suggestions are not going to be accepted. |
2008-10-27
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Russ Housley |
2008-10-27
|
04 | Russ Housley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06 by Russ Housley |
2008-10-27
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2008-10-27
|
04 | Russ Housley | Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley |
2008-10-27
|
04 | Russ Housley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-09-19
|
04 | Russ Housley | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley |
2008-02-09
|
04 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Marcus Leech. |
2008-01-30
|
04 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-01-07
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2008-01-03
|
04 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Marcus Leech |
2008-01-03
|
04 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Marcus Leech |
2008-01-02
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-01-02
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2007-12-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | Last Call was requested by Russ Housley |
2007-12-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley |
2007-12-30
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-12-30
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-12-30
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-12-30
|
04 | Russ Housley | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley |
2007-10-14
|
04 | Russ Housley | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Russ Housley |
2007-10-14
|
04 | Russ Housley | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2007-10-13
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system |
2007-10-12
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt |
2007-09-09
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
2007-09-09
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2007-04-10
|
04 | Russ Housley | Responsible AD has been changed to Russ Housley from Brian Carpenter |
2007-03-09
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system |
2007-03-08
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-narten-successful-bof-02.txt |
2007-03-03
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
2007-03-03
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2006-08-31
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system |
2006-08-30
|
04 | (System) | This document has been resurrected. |
2006-08-25
|
04 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
2006-08-25
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2006-02-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-narten-successful-bof-01.txt |
2006-01-05
|
04 | Brian Carpenter | Draft Added by Brian Carpenter in state AD is watching |
2005-10-20
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-narten-successful-bof-00.txt |