Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2021-iesg-24 2021-10-28 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2021-10-28 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2021-iesg-24 2021-10-28 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2021-10-28 IESG Teleconference

These are not an official record of the meeting.
Narrative Scribe: Liz Flynn, IETF Secretariat

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Ben Campbell (Independent Consultant) / IAB Liaison
Michelle Cotton (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Martin Duke (F5 Networks Inc) / Transport Area
Lars Eggert (NetApp) / IETF Chair, General Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Erik Kline (Google) / Internet Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / IAB Chair
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Ericsson) / Transport Area
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Robert Wilton (Cisco Systems) / Operations and Management Area

Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Murray Kucherawy (Facebook) / Applications and Real-Time Area

Lee-Berkeley Shaw
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: Does anyone want to add anything new to today's agenda? Any other changes?

Lars: I'd like to add a quick management item on IESG representative to the ISE
search committee. We can put that at the end.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Our last formal telechat was only last week and we usually give a full two
weeks to review those. We do have BoF Coordination Call minutes that went out a
couple of weeks ago. I didn't receive any revisions to the BoF call minutes;
any objection to approving those for posting? Hearing no objections, so those
are approved.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat


     o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 8739 and RFC 9115
       (Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME)) [IANA

In progress.


     o John Scudder, Martin Duke, and Robert Wilton to review the document
       shepherd templates and propose changes to include updated questions,
       cross-area checks, and an expanded section on the use of YANG

Rob: Still in progress.

Martin D: I think we're pretty close to having a strawman.

     o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft a note to wgchairs
       asking them to always confirm author/contributor status.
     o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft text to include in the
       I-D submission tool warning about too many authors.

These two are dependent on the first item.

     o Murray Kucherawy to update BCP 97 to provide guidance about handling
       normative references to non-SDO documents.

Erik K: I think this action item is on me at this point, to run through a
shepherd writeup. Chatter on the list has largely quieted down. I was pinging
Murray about that and didn't realize he's out today.

Amy: We'll keep this in progress.

     o Robert Wilton, Alvaro Retana, and Warren Kumari to report back to
       the IESG on the impact of COVID-19 to the IETF in October 2021.

Amy: We have the new numbers for this and it's on the agenda as a management
item for today.

     o Warren Kumari to rewrite the IESG blog post on "Handling IESG ballot
       positions" as an IESG statement.

Warren: In progress.

     o Eric Vyncke to follow up with the Tools Team about updating the Last
       Call template to include a pointer to

Amy: I know there's a ticket open for this.

Eric V: The ticket moved from new to accepted. It's a low priority because
nothing is broken.

Lars: I think we can close this item; we don't have to hold it open until it's
done and it's in the tools team pipeline.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14  - IETF stream
   IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Martin Vigoureux
   Was deferred by Erik Kline on 2021-10-20

Amy: I have a number of Discusses; do we need to discuss any of those today?

Martin V: I'm kind of ashamed by Alvaro's Discuss. I think I made the
assumption that it had been addressed and completely forgot to look into it. I
believe that's essential. So that document will need to be reviewed by PIM.

Alvaro: I asked Stieg and Mike, the chairs, to find someone to review this.

Martin V: Thank you, Alvaro. As for the other three I believe the lead author
seems to be on top of it so unless the ADs want to specifically discuss those,
I think we can skip the discussion.

Zahed: Murray has one Discuss on this IPR thing. I wrote in a comment saying
there was no discussion about the consensus on IPR in the shepherd writeup and
I didn't think it was a Discuss point, but I saw later Murray put a Discuss on
it. Can we get more information on that?

Martin V: I'll look a bit more into that. To be very frank, especially in BESS,
I don't look so much in IPR because this is pretty common to have IPR on those
documents and they are simply not discussed because that's the way it is. The
WG doesn't really care about IPR on EVPN technologies and BESS technologies in
general. I can look specifically into that for this document but I'm pretty
sure I won't get much more information than what I'm giving you right now in
the sense that the handling of IPR is pretty different across WGs and across
areas. BESS is quite particular on that aspect in the sense that nobody seems
to care about IPR.

Zahed: That I know. There's a huge difference between TSV area IPR and routing
area IPR. I just wanted to point it out. I wanted it to be clear.

Martin V: I'll do a bit more digging and get back to you.

Zahed: Thank you.

Amy: It sounds like this is going to stay in IESG Evaluation; is it going to
require a Revised ID?

Martin V: Yes, it will. Thank you.

 o draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13  - IETF stream
   DNS Transport over TCP - Operational Requirements (Best Current
   Token: Warren Kumari

Amy: I have a number of Discusses; do we need to discuss those today?

Warren: Not unless people want to. I don't think the lead author is on the chat
and it's the middle of ICANN week so Duane is busy with other stuff. All the
comments seem fairly sane and reasonable; if anyone has something to add, feel
free. Otherwise I think it's all good.

Lars: I was just wondering why there was no response from the authors but that
explains it. Let's just wait.

Warren: Duane is usually incredibly diligent about responding.

Amy: Are these going to require a Revised ID?

Warren: Yes.

2.1.2 Returning items


2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items


2.2.2 Returning items


2.3 Status changes
2.3.1 New items


2.3.2 Returning items


3. Document actions
3.1 WG submissions
3.1.1 New items


3.1.2 Returning items


3.2 Individual submissions via AD
3.2.1 New items


3.2.2 Returning items


3.3 Status changes
3.3.1 New items


3.3.2 Returning items


3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
3.4.1 New items

 o conflict-review-irtf-cfrg-hpke-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke
     Hybrid Public Key Encryption (IRTF: Informational)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have no Discusses for this conflict review, so unless there's an
objection now it looks like this one is ready to go back to the IRSG. Okay,
hearing no objection, so this is ready to go and we'll get this sent on Monday.

3.4.2 Returning items

 o conflict-review-smyshlyaev-tls12-gost-suites-01
   IETF conflict review for draft-smyshlyaev-tls12-gost-suites
     GOST Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
   Version 1.2 (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: I have no Discusses for this conflict review, so unless there's an
objection now it looks like this is ready to go back to the ISE.

Michelle: Ben, there were a couple of things I wanted to mention. You'd asked
the authors to add some text to a footnote for the existing registrations; as
far as we could tell they hadn't done that yet. Also for the TLS registrations
that were added in version 17, we've only gotten one expert approval for those
and normally we get two. We pinged them yesterday and we are asking about that.
Just wanted to let you know in advance.

Ben: Thanks. I'd be shocked if we couldn't get the second expert approval and
I'm not surprised the authors haven't added the text about a footnote; I only
gave them suggested text to include quite recently so I wouldn't have expected
a response from them in that amount of time.

Amy: So it's still approved; do you want us to hold this or is it okay to go?

Ben: From the IESG perspective I don't think we need to hold it; if it's more
convenient to IANA to have a trigger to go back and look at it again, we could
hold it now.

Michelle: As long as we can get that text in before publication, we should be
okay. We can work with Adrian.

Ben: Sounds good. I think we should just approve this as usual and send it back.

Amy: Okay, we'll send this back to the ISE on Monday with the note that's
currently in the tracker.

4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review


4.1.2 Proposed for approval


4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

 o Network Time Protocol (ntp)

Amy: I have no blocking comments in the tracker, so unless there's an objection
this is ready to go out for external review.

Erik K: There are several edits I need to make; I don't know what that process
is. If someone needs to talk about something, we can. There is one comment I
don't know what to do with, and that's Murray's idea about having a dedicated
security AD as a technical advisor as opposed to just consulting SEC ADs or
sending security related documents through secdispatch or some other process.
Do people have ideas about this?

Ben: Having a security technical advisor may well make sense; I'm less sure
that a sitting Security AD is the appropriate individual to put into that role.

Erik K: Is this something that has happened before?

Ben: It is something that has happened before but I don't remember being around
when it started so I'm not sure to what extent there's a formal process for it.

Lars: I think it's an agreement of the ADs and I guess it would be nice if the
chairs agreed, too. For NFS we had an advisor for a while and that was
basically discussed at the AD level and the WG was more or less informed.

Erik K: Was it captured in the charter?

Lars: There's a role for it in the Datatracker. It's a formal thing.

Ben: But it doesn't need to be in the charter, right? Just in the Datatracker?

Lars: Correct.

Eric V: For MOPS, which I'm running, Warren is the technical advisor as well.

Amy: Technical advisors don't necessarily have to be sitting ADs. There's no
formal process to add someone as a technical advisor except for the agreement
of all parties involved.

Mirja: For DETNET we had an advisor from the Transport area, which was David
Black, and it worked very well. He was very active in contributing to the WG so
the advantage is that the person who comes from the different area has a
certain standing in the group because he's sort of introduced as a technical
advisor you have to listen to. At the same time you get a little bit of
commitment from the person to show up and contribute to the WG where needed.

Erik K: So shall I just send SEC ADs email to talk about how to go about
soliciting volunteers?

Ben: I think that would be fine.

Eric V: You may want to reach out as well to the NTP chairs so they're not
taken by surprise.

Erik K: Of course. And I suppose there can be multiple technical advisors? Is
there a limit?

Eric V: Yes, many. For MOPS there is Warren and one other person.

Amy: So for the charter itself, I'm hearing no objection to hearing the
recharter for external review, but it's pending edits from Erik. You can let us
know when this can go.

4.2.2 Proposed for approval


5. IAB news we can use

Martin V: There was a call this week and I was there but I don't have any news
to report.

Mirja: We had mostly a technical discussion and some preparation for the

Lars: The one thing I'd point out is that the RFC Editor Future Program wants
to have their document reviewed and there was an email sent out. If you haven't
read that yet, you might want to read it.

6. Management issues

6.1 Impact of COVID-19 on the IETF (Robert Wilton, Alvaro Retana, and Warren

Alvaro: Thanks for updating the graphs, Amy. I'll share them. We've been
keeping track of a couple of indicators; mail messages and drafts submitted.
We've been looking at this as some type of indicator of the impact of COVID on
the operations of the IETF. This first [graph] is mail messages and basically
what you see here is the green line for 2021 is lower and has been lower all
throughout the year compared to other years. We're seeing [fewer] mail messages
and less exchange of information there. Looking at the other years I'd guess
this will come back up a little bit around the meeting.

Martin D: Are the Github automatically generated messages included?

Alvaro: Especially the QUIC ones. This was taken out. This difference is about
10% so sure, it's lower, but i don't think necessarily the sky is falling down.
All the other years have tracked pretty much the same. At this time of the year
there's a dip anyway.

Eric V: Many issues are now solved over Github and not in email anymore, so
it's not black and white.

Martin D: I don't know what the timeline is or what Github or Slack adoption
has done in the same timeline and how this maps.

Alvaro: No, I don't think we do. For the quic-issues list it was easy to filter
that out because it's a whole list; for other WGs any github messages get sent
to the main list and there aren't that many anyway. The traffic would be mixed
in with list traffic. Even if that was the case, traffic is down anyway. I
doubt all messages are being copied to the lists, too. The other thing we keep
tracking is the total number of I-Ds published. The green line is 2021. We were
tracking lower at the beginning of the year and we're still lower than other
years; there's a little spike here at the end that coincides with the
submission deadline. This is a little better than previous years. I don't know
what we'll see later in the month. In general except for that piece at the very
end we're still down for the year by 10 or 20%.

John: Is it just me or is there less seasonality to the green line than there
is to the previous lines?

Alvaro: It does look like there's less seasonality. Usually we see more little
spikes. I don't know whether it has to do with having more interims or people
having to submit stuff in the middle of the period.

John: It seems like potentially a good thing.

Alvaro: Yes, maybe. We're still lower overall than other years. The last
[graph] is -00 drafts. The yellow line is 2020 and the green line is 2021. We
were lower last year and lower this year, especially at the beginning of the
year; this year at the end we're spiking back up. The seasonality thing [is
here]; there are a lot fewer drafts at the end of the year but there's at least
a trend point up. I'm a little hopeful there because we haven't seen much of
going up so this seems to be a good thing. We're a little higher than 2020 and
2019; still lower than the other two years but there's something there. The
curve didn't keep going down as we saw in the beginning of the year. I have no
idea why this is happening but I'm assuming since people are back in the office
in some places they're talking to other people in the company and submitting to

Lars: Is this -00 individual, or -00 WG or both?

Amy: I believe it's all -00 drafts.

Warren: What would be entertaining is to have a graph or a chart of how many
documents we see now with all of the authors from the same company. Like the
distribution of authors by draft. When I did a quick unscientific spot check it
seemed like we used to have a lot more -00 drafts with people from three or
four different companies and now it seems to be a bit more homogenous with
authors from the same company, which ties into Alvaro's theory of people going
back to the office and bumping into coworkers, not other people.

Eric V: In the same vein I was talking with the MOPS chair last week and Leslie
Daigle feels (but has no data) that it's only big companies authoring drafts;
no more people with less money. Basically vendors who have a product. I don't
know whether it's true or not. I haven't noticed it myself.

Alvaro: I don't know either. I'm not sure how we get that data; is it Ryan?

Amy: This is all mailing list data, so it's not from the Datatracker.

Eric V: If Leslie is the only one to see this…

Alvaro: It may be because of the same thing. Big companies have more people so
it's more probable I'll show up and see people in my company than from a
smaller one.

Warren: If the latter is true, I don't know if we take away from that other
than it plays back into that meeting in person allows people to bump into each
other and decide to build something. That might also be confirmation bias
because I want to meet again.

Alvaro: We don't know why the curves look like this, but it seems like there is
that effect from not seeing each other in person. The drafts are obvious, but
the one for total I-Ds published; this line is low but I'm not sure we would
have noticed in a normal year. It doesn't look that bad. Maybe this has nothing
to do with the pandemic. I have no idea how we interpret this except that there
is some impact and I hope we'll see it better when meetings start again next

Rob: First question; should we be presenting these slides in the plenary? Is it
useful or not? I think it makes sense to monitor this through in person
meetings in the spring, but I have a feeling pickup may lag as well. My other
question is that it feels to me like there are [fewer] pages going through the
IESG telechats too. I don't think we're tracking that. I thought the RFC Editor
said their queue seems to be a bit lower as well. I don't know whether that's
worth us tracking or looking at. It feels like the workload for the ADs in the
next few years might be a bit lighter.

Alvaro: I have noticed that. I keep some informal numbers for myself and I've
noticed the number of pages going down and the number of pages per document
going up. It may be Yang or we're writing fewer documents with more in them,
but there's definitely a curve I've noticed going down.

Warren: I think it would be really useful to present this. Even if it's not
actually something the community does anything about; the fact that we're
tracking it is useful for them to know that we're still paying attention.

Lars: We have time on the agenda. At the moment there's not really anything out
of the ordinary and they're not giving a Postel award this year, so we have the
ability to spend some time on this. I also am wondering if we also want to talk
a little bit about the hybrid meeting thing if we have some more news about a
venue or procedures we want to follow so people know what's going to happen in
March. If somebody felt like they wanted to present this and have a discussion
that would be useful, since we did it before.

Mirja: We can still present it of course but to have a real discussion we'd
need much more data. If you look back much longer you'd also find certain
trends. If you cross relate this with participation numbers you'd also find
some trends.

Lars: Are you saying this data is not sufficiently interesting to present at
the plenary?

Mirja: You can present it but other than just noticing that we are tracking it,
I'm not sure anyone can take any kind of [conclusion].

Lars: That's fine. We would have time to present something. Not necessarily
this. Or it will be a very short plenary, which is okay with me too.

Warren: I think the useful thing to take away from this is the decrease in -00s
and our supposition that it's less people talking to each other. The reason I
think it's useful is that it helps the community understand just how much being
a community is important. The value of the IETF is not "here's a document,
publish it, now I'm done." The value of the IETF is the fact that you interact
with other people and together we build better products and better protocols,
and that's why people should participate, instead of publishing something on
their company's API page.

Lars: There's this authorship diversity thing to some degree. The other thing I
think it would be interesting to understand is whether this drop in -00s is
actually because we don't get new individual stuff or because WGs are slow to
adopt stuff. It might be both, and they're obviously not unrelated, but I think
that would be interesting to understand whether we don't get new individual
work or if it's WGs slowing down. It doesn't seem like it based on the
progression that we see. Well, actually, maybe it does because we just noticed
the IESG load is lower. It might simply be overall that the WGs have gotten a
little slower. I don't know if we have time to get data within a week. I kind
of doubt it.

Alvaro: Or that data will actually answer those questions.

Mirja: It's not necessarily a bad thing that we get a little less new work and
some old work done and make progress there.

Lars: If that was happening that would be okay. It might just be that
everything is slower. As a side discussion, this AID workshop you're running on
the IAB side, has anyone proposed to look into the Covid impact?

Mirja: No, we have nothing on Covid. I'm just wondering why. We can probably
still bring it up.

Lras: I think we should certainly bring it up as a problem. Maybe someone will
feel motivated and have something to present in March. So to wrap this up, I
will not schedule time for this at the plenary unless someone sends me email
and says they want to talk about it. If the community brings it up we can
answer without slides.

Amy: We'll reset this action item to come back before IETF 113 with new data,
so we'll put this on hold for a few months.

6.2 "Newcomer's Agenda" for IETF 112 (Martin Duke)

Martin D: I want to run through a few things on this document. I don't care a
ton about what the title should be. Right now the working title is Newcomers
Agenda but I have some suggested alternatives too. Does anyone feel strongly
about this or have a suggestion we should consider?

Eric V: "Newcomers" sounds like I'm just out of university. It's not that
attractive for someone older just joining.

Lars: "New participants?"

Martin D: I like that. This was my guess as to what would be accessible to
people. One interesting thing about this exercise is that our scheduling isn't
optimal. I guess that's life. Yesterday the WG agendas came in so we now have a
better picture of what's happening in our WGs. Does anyone have anything in
particular they know to be either inappropriate for this list that's on here or
that's missing?

Lars: I'm not sure the crypto forum is so accessible to newcomers; it's
borderline. This list is not really telling a new participant much. It would be
nice if we had one sentence for someone who doesn't know what a WG is and can't
get from the title why it's a good group for a new participant to get into.

Martin D: Would a hyperlink work? Or should we actually write something?

Lars: If the hyperlink links to something a new participant can actually get
something out of.

Martin D: Maybe to the charter.

Lars: I think that's almost too detailed. I think it should be one or two
sentences like "This group is interesting at this time because X."

Ben: I agree. I don't think a link is going to actually get user engagement;
you'd have to click the links for all of the items on this thing.

Martin D: Fair enough. I can update mine, for sure. I will put in some minimal
text; can we set a time of COB Friday for people to look at this, make
additions or subtractions to the list, and then ship it? Stuff starts next week.

Lars: Yes.

Mirja: I think this is touching what we were just discussing. I wasn't sure for
some of these sessions why you put them on here, and the why is important for
the new participants to know. Some of them are very straightforward like area
meetings, but I think by accessible you mean that I don't need a deep technical
knowledge of the topic, but this WG is at a stage of starting something new
where you don't have to have been to the last several meetings, or where every
session is independent of every other. Maybe using a different word here helps
as well.

Martin D: That makes sense. In terms of normal WGs (non area or dispatch) it's
mainly ones that are just starting out or BoFs where people are going to be
presenting high level proposals.

Mirja: You should add this information like "first meeting" or "rechartering"
or whatever.

Martin D: When we have multiple recommendations should we bold one as a
primary? Is that wise or is that too micromanagey?

Mirja: I'm not sure if you're able to do that, because everyone has a different
area of interest.

Zahed: I'm looking at the big list and I'm not sure how this will help. I'm not
criticizing the work you've done, it's excellent, but if it's too much
information….Let's say I'm a newcomer and I look at "IRTF Open Meeting." I need
to understand the jargon, what does "open meeting" mean in the context of the
IETF? "Rechartering," I also need to understand what that means. Let's try this
out and see what the reaction is. I think it would be very good to get feedback
from the newcomers. Everyone will come with particular things in mind and I
don't know how to help them. I have no good alternatives here.

Francesca: I think you're making a really good point. Adding one sentence
description maybe with links. Like when you list Dispatch WG joint with
ARTAREA, that's very cryptic for a person who doesn't know what that means. If
we write one sentence and put a link to the charter of Art AREA, it becomes
much more useful.

Rob: Would it be worth us just having a bit more text at the top saying you can
find the charters here, you can find agendas of what's going to be happening
here, etc. Some of these things, like IOTOPS, I don't know what they're going
to talk about at this stage but maybe their agenda is already up. I wonder
whether that would be better to tell people where to find information, and then
they can also find that for other WGs.

Zahed: I was going to say something like that but I think it's quite late to do
that detailed work. I would say be narrative, Tuesday morning this is what we
think will be interesting to newcomers. They can find out the details in the
HTML agenda, but a bit more narratively.

Martin D: I'm all for people putting in the time to increase production values
for this but people do still have access to the actual agenda.

Zahed: Perhaps not the agenda, but the session times and things they can find
with a link to the agenda we have.

Francesca: Some titles are quite descriptive but others are quite cryptic. Greg
wrote in the chat that he's interested in helping with this, too.

Lars: I wonder if this would be more useful to structure by topic instead of
time. If I'm a web person, what should I pay attention to? And have a bunch of
things like that rather than having this by time.

John: With the Routing ADs we talked about that earlier this week and came to a
similar conclusion but decided we didn't have time to do a good job before this
meeting. Even within the area, there are different topics.

Martin D: The agenda cna already give you by-agenda filtering. That's a
different objective than this.

Zahed: That was confusing too. What's the objective, helping the newcomers? I
like the idea of this narrative but I also like it by area. Maybe we could have
ADs write something for each area. That we could do a bit more narratively.

WArren: I just added a really short comment on OPSAWG. Maybe while we're all
sitting on the call we can just add a sentence or two about what each one is
and then Martin doesn't have to figure it out.

Zahed: We should collaborate.

Mirja: Is there more to say here than if you're bored, you can go to the
dispatch meetings and area meetings? Do we actually need to list the meetings?

Martin D: I think this is fine and easy to execute. The primary goal here is
for a stated issue about newcomers, but it's also good for people who showed up
for QUIC and have nothing else to do, or someone who has an open space and
wants to go to something that won't immediately devolve into Github hell.
There's a lot of ways to do this but a completely different architecture for
this, if someone wants to do that you can do that, but this is where we're
going with this.

Mirja: I do think it's important to be clear why things are on this list.

Martin D: I'm happy to write a sentence on each one. It's not a big deal.

Mirja: For IRTF I would double check with Colin.

Rob: I wonder whether we're over-engineering this.

Zahed: It's too much to ask of us, particularly Martin, to do all that work. We
should do it collaboratively, send this to newcomers and see what they think.
I'm happy doing this as it is.

Rob: The only thing I'd change to this is add a pointer to the agenda near the
top and give a couple of instructions on how people can find what's going to be
presented for a given session. That's useful. Otherwise I think this is fine,
to try this and see how it is. I'm not sure we should spend time.

Mirja: I think there is some kind of newcomer information we send to all the
newcomers which probably has some of this general guidance in there.

Martin D: I pitched this at the workshop and Karen thought it was a great idea.
She would know.

Mirja: I'm just saying we should make sure we provide the same message in what
we give people.

Martin D: My other question was about distribution channels. My initial plan
was to send this to Karen and whatever channels she has to distribute this is
fine. Is there anywhere else we should put this? It might be useful to other
attendees who are not newcomers. We could send it to 112attendees or link to it
from the agenda or the website.

Mirja: You could create a button in the datatracker to filter by general
interest but then you have to put all of this in there.

Martin D: I'm seeing something in slack to send it to 112attendees. Greg, if
you're on, what do you think?

Greg: I think this is a great effort. I think it would be great to have a quick
conversation just to coordinate on distribution time and channels. I just don't
want anyone to be surprised so this is coordinated with everything else going
on. Karen O'Donoghue and Joey Salazar are on EMODIR. We can connect by email.

Martin D: My initial plan was just to email this to Karen and let her do what
she wants to do with it. Should I send this to you as well, Greg, and you can
put it where you want? I don't know if anyone needs to second guess what to do
with it. I'm happy to just send it to you and let you decide where to ship it.
So just to conclude, the course of action ehre is that I will write a short
sentence by looking at each agenda for 30 seconds and you have until COB
tomorrow to hate what I wrote. Friday evening I will email this to Karen and
Greg and they'll put it wherever it's appropriate.

Eric V: Just be sure to re-send the link [to us].

Martin D: Okay. That's all I needed. Thanks.

6.3 Finalization of "important-news" (Lars Eggert)

Lars: You saw that I sent a link to the same Google document we used before
that has my analysis of the different types of feedback I got and the decision
that I want to have us take today, ideally, that we're going forward with this.
It's basically the same proposal that we sent out for comment with the addition
that we would also subscribe people that subscribe to a new IETF mailing list.
Those people that haven't previously unsubscribed from important-news. If each
of you subscribes to your next BOF list, once you're unsubscribed from
important-news we're not going to subscribe you with your next list. The other
thing is that we looked into this no-dupes thing and it really is per mailing
list, not across. Since this list will have very few emails and modern mail
clients tend to hide duplicate messages anyway, which is why I thought we
didn't have a problem, this is okay. Any comments on anything? Are we going
ahead, yes or no? I see nodding.

Rob: I'm a yes for this.

Lars: Okay. If you have a minute later, take a look at the Google document.
I'll probably send this out tomorrow my time.

Eric V: I'm not sure whether sending such a thing before a weekend is the most

Lars: I can do it Monday too; that's fine. Okay, I'll wait until Monday. Good.
We're minuting that we're going ahead with the decision to create this mailing
list as described.

6.4 IESG Representative to ISE Search Committee (Lars Eggert)

Lars: Adrian is stepping down as ISE effective in February. The IAB is now
trying to find a replacement and they're going to put together a search
committee with various people. Since the IESG is probably the body that
interacts with the ISE most regularly with conflict reviews, it would be very
helpful if the IESG had a representative on the search committee. By default
I'm the stuckee, which also nicely fills a second role because I'd also be
there for the LLC. But if somebody else from the IESG was interested in helping
with this, we could probably argue for another IESG member to join this
committee. It's around five right now and it shouldn't grow much more than
that, but we should decide. Im' happy to be on it anyway.

Ben: Is there a charter or a job description for this group?

Mirja: This sounds more official than it is. We usually do this for all
appointments, a group of IAB members and two or three people to run the
interviews and give a recommendation to the rest of the IAB. For the ISE we do
that as well with three people from the IAB and we also reached out to the
IRTF, IESG, and LLC if they want to add somebody because this is a role that
does impact those positions. That's it. It's just about running the interviews
and giving a recommendation to the IAB about who to select.

Ben: Thanks.

Lars: The timeline is by the end of January you'll make a decision?

Mirja: The call is open right now. We already have a few candidates but we
didn't put a final deadline, so we have time to find good candidates. We plan
to start the interviews in December so we can hopefully decide early next year.
Adrian is stepping down at the end of February.

Lars: Was there a decision of whether Adrian should be on the search committee?

Mirja: We'll hopefully involve Adrian in some of the interviews and discussions
because he has the most expertise, but he won't be part of the final decision.

Lars: THe final decision is the IAB's, right? The search committee will make a
recommendation or do a ranking and then the IAB votes.

Mrija: Yes. I guess nobody on the search committee who's not also a member of
the IAB could vote in the end. Everybody except Adrian is invited to join any
part of the discussion.

Lars: Anybody interested?

Eric V: Any idea how many interviews, how many hours?

Mirja: It depends on how many candidates. We have three already and hopefully
we'll get a few more. We usually schedule 45 minutes each and then a chat with
the committee to figure out who to recommend.

Warren: How much of the work of this is expected to be finding new candidates
vs interviewing existing ones? Are we twisting arms or just reviewing and

Mirja: Finding people we'd need the help of you all anyway. Maybe it's the
search committee who would care about this a little more but it's mainly
running the process.

Warren: I'd like to participate and help however I can. I think the ISE is one
of the most important positions in the whole IETF.

Mirja: Happy to add you.

Lars: Then we'll have Warren from the IESG and me from the IESG/LLC. Thanks,

7. Any Other Business (WG News, New Proposals, etc.)

Michelle: IANA is going to be sending out its annual engagement survey, which
is a survey to let us know how we're doing. You'll be receiving an invite as an
IESG member. If you could spend a couple minutes to fill it out we'd greatly
appreciate it. In the past the greatest IESG participation we've ever had was
four people, so if we can beat that this year, it would be great.

Warren: It is a very short, pleasant survey. How are the 360 surveys going; are
we getting a lot of feedback?

Cindy: I know Alexa was working on collating the data but I don't know how much
data there actually is.

Lars: Jay sent me an email with basically two options for a rollup and we told
him to do the one that's less work, which I think is a live view of your
scores. I guess he will do something, I don't know quite when he will get to it.

Warren: Okay. I'm hoping we got a bunch of people to fill it out.

Francesca: I am bringing back a document to a telechat that has a number of
Discusses that was updated by the authors. I hope I'm doing it right. I just
scheduled it for the next available telechat and it's showing up as coming
back. Just a heads up.