Skip to main content

Minutes for IESG at IETF-92
minutes-92-iesg-opsplenary-1

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2015-03-25 21:40
Title Minutes for IESG at IETF-92
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2016-02-01

minutes-92-iesg-opsplenary-1
IETF 92 Administrative and Management Plenary
Minutes: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat

1. Welcome - Jari Arkko

2. Host recognition

3. Reporting

   - IETF chair - Jari Arkko
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-7.pdf

   - IAOC chair and IAD - Tobias Gondrom standing in for Chris Griffiths, and
   Ray Pelletier
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-1.pdf

   - IETF Trust chair - Tobias Gondrom
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-4.pdf

  - NomCom chair - Michael Richardson
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-9.pdf

4. CodeMatch - Kathleen Moriarty and Lisandro Granville
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-2.pdf

5. Hackathon - Charles Eckel
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-3.pdf

6. Postel award announcement (request for nominations) - Kathy Brown
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-0.pdf

7. IETF 93 - Ondrej Filip
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-6.pdf

8. Thank outgoing IAOC and IESG members

All outgoing members were recognized and received a plaque.

9. IAOC open mic

Ray Pelletier brought attention to the remote participation mic queue. The IAOC
took the stage and introduced themselves.

John Levine asked about the Open Internet Endowment and wanted to know where
the money was and if it was used.  Kathy Brown discussed the history of the
Endowment from its inception in 2011 and that the relatively few donations have
sat in the account since.  ISOC has plans to open the drive again for the
endowment. There are some issues with the purpose statement for the endowment
to be used for the IETF and other open standards activities.  There was a
concern from those who would contribute to the endowment that it be used for
the IETF.  The ISOC Board has discussed revising the purpose statement so it is
clear it is for the exclusive use of the IETF and its activities.  The campaign
will be reopened once the endowment's purpose statement has been clarified.

John Levine asked a follow up question if the ISOC would like help finding
larger donors for the endowment once it is reopened. Kathy answered yes, and
the hope moving forward is that the interest on the endowment would help
sustain the activities of the IETF.

PŒl Martinsen asked if the IETF could own code. It was mentioned that this is
what the IETF trust is for. Jari Arkko stated that it depends on what the
participants of activities like the Hackathon thought about code ownership. The
discussion is ongoing on the mailing lists.

Scott Bradner added that the IETF Trust can, and does own code. Tobias Gondrom
stated the question is whether the Trust needs to own more code.

Michael Richardson stated he was pleased there were fewer visa problems for
this IETF and he was concerned that we (the IETF) don't have answers to why the
Dallas meeting was easier than the Hawaii meeting. He mentioned the IETF could
make sure in advance that these issues don't occur.  Tobias Gondrom stated
there was anecdotal evidence that the timing of Honolulu in the fall coincided
with the student rush on the US visa system, and another change to the visa to
enter the US was the extension of the lifetime of the visas themselves. He went
on to state that with the IAOC visa issues are taken very seriously, so if an
IETF attendee is having trouble obtaining a visa, they want to know about it so
they can help.

Ray Pelletier mentioned that the IETF is opening up meeting registrations
earlier, but please note the rules differ from country to country on how early
an attendee can apply for the appropriate visa.

Keith Moore followed up by asking if it was worth having a reporting feature in
the registration database for people who are having trouble with obtaining
visas. Ray Pelletier spoke about the issues for the Honolulu meeting, and that
the IETF reached out to the US State department to assist in processing.  He
spoke about the thirty-seven people who had been having difficulties, and that
they were able to make sure about thirty of them got the appropriate
documentation to attend.  Ray also mentioned that for future meetings more
information would be available on the IETF meeting Web site earlier to assist
with visa issues.

Tobias closed the IAOC Open Mic.

10. IESG open mic

Jari Arkko opened the IESG Open Mic. The incoming, continuing, and outgoing
area directors introduced themselves.

Dave Crocker asked about an Internet-Draft that discussed the role of the WG
Secretary. The non-WG mailing list for discussion is wgguide@ietf.org.

Michael Richardson asked, as he had discussed with the area directors singly,
the IESG if they had a plan to reduce their jobs back to 50% of a 40-hour work
week.  Stephen Farrell mentioned that they have not had the time to analyze
what they could do as a group. Jari Arkko mentioned that more work should
happen in the working groups and less centered on the IESG.  Barry Leiba
mentioned making changes to the Applications Directorate and how they operate
with regards to document reviews. Kathleen Moriarty also mentioned the
cross-area experiment, and how much she was learning with how OPS working
groups deal with things like errata, and taking that back to the security
working groups has helped.

Spencer Dawkins talked about how 50% is still a too-high time commitment for
those who might stand for transport area director. He mentioned that the
revision to RFC 2026 that allowed there to be more than two area directors in
Routing would be something that could be utilized to lessen the load on the ADs
in other areas.

Philip Hallam-Baker asked a question about data models and data encoding. He
used the example of JSON and how work completed in the JSON working group, and
then another group wanted to do all the work over with another data format and
another data encoding and needed a new working group to do the work. He stated
the cliquishness of the people who proposed the new group pushed everyone else
out of the way. Philip suggested an efficient binary encoding for JSON, that is
open and consultative process starting from scratch. Kathleen Moriarty
mentioned that she is the area director for the possible new group, and
mentioned there was nothing approved, right now they have a mailing list to
open up the discussion on whether there should be a new working group at all.
She wants the issues raised and the discussion to take place.

Barry Leiba suggested Philip make a BoF proposal for the Prague meeting (IETF
93) to discuss the suggestion he raised. Pete Resnick mentioned the IETF has
gotten much better about the single-work item working groups. All of the
processes are now much smoother in chartering and closing working groups as
necessary.

David Black mentioned a couple of suggestions on work load. He suggested having
more generalist ADs on the IESG, that would serve as out-of-area ADs to assist
work load across all areas.

David also commented that all documents are now reviewed by all area directors,
and possibly restructuring by area and adding a few more ADs. He made the point
that having every AD review every document was overkill for most documents. 
Richard Barnes commented on the second suggestion and talked about focusing his
time on documents where he had expertise.  Spencer Dawkins talked about how
some of the IESG already are serving as generalist ADs, but opening it up in
the future so more people willing to serve as generalist area directors are
targeted by a future NomCom. Spencer added that David's second point about
document balloting by area is something the IESG has discussed and will
continue to discuss.

Pete Resnick clarified the balloting system the area directors use. "Yes" and
"No Objection" are used to pass documents, and that for documents that are out
of the expertise for the AD, they may search for terms that have the potential
to be problematic, but may ballot a "No Objection" if no terms are found.

Keith Moore had concerns about the URNBIS Working Group working without
traditional community input or transparency. He noted that the current
documents from the working group undermine the technology of URNs. When Keith
has questioned this issue, the answer he gets from the URNBIS WG is that it is
for political reasons. He expressed concern that the scheduled URNBIS meeting
for IETF 92 was cancelled due to non-attendance.

Barry Leiba mentioned that the URNBIS working group has been concerning him as
well. However, he pointed out the working groups schedule to meet at IETF
meetings and then cancel later if they feel they cannot have a productive
meeting, and URNBIS was only one of several that had cancelled at IETF 92. He
mentioned that the WG chairs and URNBIS have heard Keith's concerns and have
considered them. However, he states that the end users in the community that
uses the technology have said that the URN technology as it is does not meet
their needs.

Keith responds that he was very interested to have the international library
community use URNs, but points out that URNs were not created for naming of
fixed point media but to facilitate naming of network accessible resources, and
the changes being made are undermining that ability. He brought up the effort
to assign Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) to RFCs, and it is a competing
standard to URNs, and if the IETF is going to assign DOIs that they should also
assign URNs, making them as prominent in the metadata as the DOI.

Wes George asked about the new scheduling tool. He has seen multiple times when
he is supposed to be several places at once and he's chaired wg sessions solo
when his co-chair was double booked. He'd like to add a question to the meeting
survey about if people were double booked to get evidence.

Jari Arkko mentioned there has been a huge improvement since the tool was
implemented. He also mentioned that it isn't the tool or the algorithm but that
there is limited time and limited rooms to schedule all the sessions into.

Pete Resnick added that the tool does have first order conflict and second
order conflicts built in and having chairs input their conflicts into the first
order conflict would help as well.

Leslie Daigle mentioned that on the subject of DOIs she is not a fan of the
technology. However, it is the industry standard and she is glad the RFC series
will have them. She mentioned that she agrees with Keith about some of URNBIS'
issues, and would like to see it get more attention and cross-review. She
thinks getting more application area review for URNBIS would be useful. Barry
Leiba thanked her for the suggestion.

The IESG ended the meeting by passing dots from the former ADs to the new ADs.

Other resources:

IANA Report - Michelle Cotton
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-5.pdf

NOC Report
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iesg-opsplenary-8.pdf