Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.
Internet-Draft Thinking Cat Enterprises LLC
Intended status: Informational October 31, 2016
Expires: May 4, 2017
After the first decade: IASA Retrospective
draft-daigle-iasa-retrospective-00
Abstract
The IETF Administrative Support Activity was formally established and
undertaken as a project of the Internet Society in 2005. In the
following 10+ years, the IETF has grown and changed, as have the
responsibilities that fall to the IASA.
This document reflects on some of those changes and the implications
within the IASA structure, providing some areas for further
discussion to consider evolvingthe IASA and the IETF/ISOC
relationship.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Evolution of IASA breadth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. IASA coverage in 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. IASA coverage in 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Evolution of Internet Society Partnership . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Issues and Potential Next Steps for the IASA structure . . . 6
6. Closing remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
A special Introduction to the -00 version of this draft: When
completed, this document will achieve the stated goal of capturing
reflections on the evolution of the IASA. Right now, it is the first
draft written by one person with a few peoples' (thoughtful, and
appreciated) input. Gaps are inevitable. Misrepresentations are not
intended. Further constructive comments are welcome.
In April 2005, BCP 101 ([RFC4071]) was published, formally creating
the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). At the end of an
intense community discussion, the IASA was formed as an activity
housed within the Internet Society (ISOC), and BCP 101 defined the
roles of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), and the
IETF Administrative Directory (IAD). Together, these roles have
defined responsibilities for IETF's fiscal and administrative
support.
With the newly established IASA, the IETF was in a position to
formalize several activities that had been undertaken by other
organizations, on behalf of the IETF. This allowed the IETF take
responsibility of those operations. Through the 10+ years since the
inception of IASA, the operations and responsibilities have, however,
grown and requirements have evolved. Nor has the world stood still
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
-- at the same time, the Internet Society has grown and taken on a
broader role in Internet governance and global activities.
This document reflects on some of those changes and the implications
within the IASA structure, providing some areas for further
discussion to consider evolvingthe IASA and the IETF/ISOC
relationship.
3. Evolution of IASA breadth
3.1. IASA coverage in 2005
In order to understand the evolution of the IASA, it is important to
describe the baseline -- what the IASA was when it was first formed.
o Secretariat -- the IETF Secretariat function was carried out by an
organization that had been a subsidiary of CNRI (which had
collected meeting fees and provided Secretariat services until the
creation of the IASA). In 2005, key personnel migrated to Neustar
to carry out the Secretariat function under contract with the
Internet Society (for IASA). This gave the IETF full control and
responsibility for picking meeting locations, as well as setting
and collecting meeting fees. A first priority was to establish
meeting dates, locations and contracts more than a year in
advance, to improve contract negotiating positions, costs, and
provide clarity for attendee planning. (Historical data point:
the early 2004 Seoul IETF meeting did not have a hotel contract
booked in December of 2003).
o RFC Editor -- The RFC Editor function had been handled at USC ISI
for many years (since its inception?). In the years leading up to
the formation of the IASA, The Internet Society had provided
funding to ISI in the form of a contract to carry out the work.
With the creation of the IASA, this contract was folded into the
ISOC/IASA support.
o IANA -- by the time the IASA was established, ICANN was well-
established and had been carrying out the Internet Assigned Names
Activity for several years. The IETF had established a Memorandum
of Understanding with ICANN on the handling of protocol parameters
for IETF standards ([RFC2860]), but it did not specify levels of
service or practical terms of agreement.
o Tools -- the Secretariat had developers on staff who had built
tools to support the workflow of the IETF (e.g., liaison manager).
The software was proprietary, and IETF community programmers had
no access or insight. At the same time, the IETF community being
what it is, there were community-driven tools that were built up
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
in an open source fashion. These were completely separate and
separately maintained.
o Staff -- the IASA established that the IETF would have one full-
time employee (officially an employee of ISOC, as part of the
administrative arrangements). That one employee was the IETF
Administrative Director.
o The IAOC -- established as an administrative oversight body, the
IAOC was established with 3 voting and one non-voting ex officio
members (IETF Chair, IAB Chair, ISOC CEO and IAD, respectively),
one member appointed by the ISOC Board, and 4 appointees from the
community (2 from NomCom, 1 each appointed by the IESG and IAB).
3.2. IASA coverage in 2016
A little more than a decade later, things have changed substantially
in terms of the coverage of the responsibilities of the IASA.
o Secretariat -- the IASA put the Secretariat contract out for
competitive bid in 2007, establishing a contract with professional
association management company (Association Management Services)
in 2008, with key personnel moving to AMS.
o RFC Editor -- the IAB split the RFC Editor function into separate
functions and these have been contracted out -- RFC Series Editor;
RFC Production, Independent Series Editor. These are collectively
overseen by an IAB-based, community-populated advisory board
(RSOC). The RFC Series continues to grow in terms of number of
documents published, and new features (e.g., ISSNs) and other
formats supported for the documents. (N.B.: The IASA is not
responsible for defining or driving any of that growth -- it's
mentioned here as a reflection of the scope of the work that the
IASA is called upon to support).
o IETF Trust -- the IETF Trust was formed after the IASA was
established. It was created in 2006, when RFC 4748 updated RFC
3798 (the first organization of IETF rights in contributions), and
that RFC was updated by RFC 5378 ([RFC5378]) as the organizational
definition of the IETF Trust.
o IANA -- Trust holds the IPR, we now formally contract with ICANN
to do the work (which is an update over the SLA that was
established in the intervening decade)
o Tools -- the IETF's software tools are still a mix of things
developed spontaneously by community members and specific work put
out for hire. The latter is now handled through RFPs, and care is
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
made to ensure that tools upon which the community is dependent
can be maintained and supported for as long as needed.
o Comms -- Beyond simply having a reliable website, the IETF's use
of "communications" has extended in recent years. This ranges
from updates in the website itself, to work with social and
industry media and messaging to position the IETF in relelvant
global discussions. Of late, the IETF has used the services of
ISOC professionals communications staff, helping deal with some of
the publicly visible issues such as the impacts of surveillance
revelations or the IANA transition. Starting from 2017, this
support is for the first time part of the IETF budget, whereas
previously the activity and its funding not visible at that level
o Sponsorship and funding -- even as the IETF retains its basic
operational structure, the industry around it changes. The last
decade has seen increased costs of meetings and productions, and a
greater reliance on corporate funding. Where once the IETF relied
on individual community members convincing their companies to step
up for the next meeting, the IETF now plans its meetings several
years in advance and needs to align funding expectations
accordingly. It takes expertise to update funding models, build
and implement programs for securing industry sponsorship. BCP 101
formally identifies that the IETF is not to fundraise on its own;
indeed, the IASA is not responsible for the sponsorship
development (just managing its impact on the IASA budget). The
IETF sponsorship models have evolved, and in 2016 they consist of
ISOC memberships, the Global Host program, meeting hosts and other
meeting sponsors, the Hackathon and Bits-n-Bites sponsorships, and
the IETF Endowment. The team helping with sponsors involves a
primary sponsorship person at ISOC, the IAD, the Secretariat, as
well as frequent help from the IETF leadership and their
connections.
o Staff -- the IASA still has exactly one permanent employee -- the
IETF Administrative Director.
o IAOC -- the structure of the IAOC remains unchanged since the
IASA's inception.
o IAOC Committees -- recognizing the need for more eyes and
specialized attention for different branches of work requiring
IAOC oversight, the IAOC established committees. Membership in
these committees is decided by, but not limited to, the IAOC.
(Details about IAOC Committees, including the current list of
committees and membership, is available from
https://iaoc.ietf.org/committees.html ). The committees do the
heavy lifting on background work for IAOC decisions. The IAOC is
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
nonetheless responsible for its decisions based on committee
output and recommendations. For example,
* Finance Committee: reviews financial reports prepared by the
IAD (with support from ISOC Accounting staff), discusses budget
proposals before going to the whole IAOC.
* Meetings Committee: Reviews detailed proposals for IETF meeting
venues and proposes locations for approval by the IAOC.
4. Evolution of Internet Society Partnership
When the IASA was formally created, the Internet Society had only
recently established a subtantial and steady financial basis (through
its Public Interest Registry project). "Internet Governance" was a
relatively new global policy discussion topic, and the Internet
Society provided a much needed voice for the Internet technical
community. It had a very small staff (10 staff listed in the 2004
annual report), a broad footprint of Chapters around the globe, and a
few, focused projects undertaken by staff.
Since 2005, the Internet Society has expanded significantly,
organizationally and in its presence on the world stage of Internet
policy, development and technology. While it remains committed to
its role of support of the IETF, it becomes increasingly challenging
to maintain (and explain) the reality that the Internet Society and
the IETF are two separate organizations, with independent roles and
perspectives, while everything from the hotel contracts to the MoU
with ICANN (for IANA services) is signed by the Internet Society (as
the legal entity for the IETF).
5. Issues and Potential Next Steps for the IASA structure
Here are some issues that could use addressing in updates to the IASA
structure:
o The most general question: the effort involved in IASA-related
tasks has considerably risen during its existence, and the current
organisatorial arrangements may no longer be the perfect match for
the task. Are changes needed in the organisation?
o The 2016 IETF is more diverse and more international than it was
previously. Arranging meetings is a particular area that today
demands more work, and also needs to be done within the
expectations of the community. Local conditions, invitation and
visa processes, and hotel and network facilities demand effort.
While the IAOC has made some changes regarding site selection, and
ongoing IETF working group effort will help specify requirements
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
more clearly, it remains unclear if the current arrangements are
the best possible organisation for setting up meetings.
o Sponsorship and hosting issues in particular are difficult for
meetings. While some operational changes are being made to the
sponsorship opportunities for the IETF, the IETF would probably be
served well by moving more towards funding models that are
independent of the meetings.
o In the last couple of years, the IAOC and ISOC have worked to
ensure that in-kind contributions as work and other support are
properly accounted for in the IETF budget. This increases
transparency and awareness. However, even with this progress, the
actual work is still organised within two separate organisations,
which makes it hard to have one decision point regarding where and
how to spend resources.
o Clarity of IETF representative communications: who is responsible
for determining the structure and message of the IETF's place on
the world stage, to potential sponsors, etc. The IASA role is to
ensure there are appropriate resources (expertise, materials), but
it is not currently clear to whom those should be provided, and
therefore, what the specification of the task is.
o Representation for sponsorhips: The Internet Society is formally
responsible for IETF fund raising (per BCP101). The IASA is
responsible for aligning promised sponsor benefits with meeting
realities, and tracking the overall budget. Currently, the IASA
relies on the IETF Chair to take responsibility for managing
discussions required to vet any possible changes in
representation, but perhaps there are other models that would
scale more effectively.
o Clarity of role in the IETF Endowment: related to the question of
determining the shape of representative communications materials,
potential IETF Endowment contributors ask for a perspective of
where the IETF is going in the next decade, and how Endowment
money might be used. The future of the IETF is not for the IASA
to decide, but the IAOC's role in building and managing the IETF
budget make it a natural place to look for some of these answers.
This highlights three problems:
1. It is ISOC that is pitching the IETF Endowment (because ISOC
is a legal organization; because the IETF is not supposed to
do fundraising, per BCP 101) and potential funders can be
confused why the IETF is not speaking directly.
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
2. The obvious question, "Why doesn't ISOC just pay for it?" --
which stems from a lack of perception of the different world
roles of the two organizations.
3. In preparing the pitch for the IETF Endowment, ISOC naturally
turns to the "money manager" of the IETF to get answers to
these questions, and it is confusing when the IAOC can neither
provide answers or identify the suitably responsible part of
the organization.
A better plan would be to have clarity about who the IETF thinks
is responsible for such discussions, and messaging that more
clearly to the rest o.
o Formalizing the relationship between the IETF and the Internet
Society: in establishing the IASA in 2005, the IETF and the
Internet Society determined the best relationship was to have the
IASA homed as an Internet Society project. Is that still the best
arrangement for all concerned?
o Staffing: The IASA was created with one fulltime IETF staff person
-- the IETF Administrative Director. Some questioned whether it
would even be a fulltime job. It always has been at least a
fulltime job, and over the years the shortfall of resources has
been at least partially addressed by contributions of Internet
Society staff resources that are available (e.g., see notes above
about the IETF Communications plans, etc). This is suboptimal for
the IETF in that staff availability may not align well with actual
needs, and suboptimal for the Internet Society that has its own
projects to pursue.
o IAOC membership: The IAOC has 4 ex officio members (IETF Chair,
IAB Chair, ISOC CEO, IETF Administrative Director (non-voting)),
and 5 appointed members. One of 5 members is appointed by the
ISOC Board of Trustees, and is traditionally expected not to stand
for IAOC Chair. That leaves a small pool from which to select the
IAOC Chair (and the IETF Trust Chair, usually a different person),
and very few (2, by the time you've appointed Chairs) "worker
bees" for the IAOC. This is a functional model for handling those
review issues that can be put to the IAOC by the IAD and the
Committees and addressed in the IAOC monthly teleconference.
There is zero bandwidth for deep review or engagement on any
topic. Whle the IAOC was intended only ever to be oversight, and
the IAD does not need a huge flock of "bosses", the fact that this
shallowness has become a friction point suggests that something
structural needs to change, either within the IAOC or the IASA
staffing.
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
o IETF engagement in IASA: The group of people who engage in the of
the IETF demonstrate little interest in how the IASA is
administered or paid for, unless something goes "wrong".
(Consider the consistent lack of interest and short volunteer
lists for open IAOC positions, contrasted against the e-mail
evaluations of meeting venues at each and every IETF meeting.
Hmmm. Perhaps the latter dissuades potential volunteers?!). This
makes it difficult for the IAOC to identify, pursue, or suggest
changes that might ultimately be in the organizations long term
(or, sometimes, even short term) interest. More consistent
engagement might help.
6. Closing remarks
The creation of the IETF was a step in formalizing discussions among
engineers who were interested in the development of the
specifications of the technology to drive the Internet. Creating the
IASA was a logical step in bringing together the various
administrative functions that had been first offered by different
organizations involved in the work. As the world continues to evolve
around the IETF and the Internet, perhaps it is time for another
review of where we are and whether our administrative formalizations
fit the needs of the work at hand.
7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
[RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IASA Retrospective October 2016
Author's Address
Leslie Daigle (editor)
Thinking Cat Enterprises LLC
Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Daigle Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 10]