IETF 103 Plenary Session 7 November 2018 1. Welcome Alissa Cooper: Welcome to the IETF 103 Plenary on this first meeting in Bangkok. I am Alissa Cooper, I am the chair of the IETF. This is the first visit to this hotel, but they have already figured us out. I saw this sign this morning as I was getting off the elevator [slide of sign reading "Software Basic Training" with an arrow]. Some of us could use Software Basic Training a little more than others. The hotel was trying to direct us to get the right place. A lot of work has been done this week. It's a little weird to have the Plenary now, on the second to last day, instead of the third to last day. It feels likw we've accomplished a lot. I wanted to call out in particular a very important discussion which happened the other day about what the name should be of the next HTTP. For those who were not in the room, one of the suggestions was that the protocol could be called "Dave." This was the slide, and HTTP/3, or Dave. It was a contentious debate. And it seems to be ongoing. Should it be called "Zanzibar BuckBuck McFate McCave," or should it be called "HTTP/3." Lots of important discussion happening there. I understand there is already interoperable implementations of the current version of HTTP/3 mentioned in the QUIC WG. Alissa: Here is our agenda.We will hear from our Hosts, and Local hosts, the IESG, IAB, LLC Board, IETF Trust, NomCom, and RFC Editor. Then we'll hear from our hosts for 104, and then open mic sessions. There is no technical topic this time, so hopefully its another short one. 2. Meeting Host presentation - Huawei and Cisco Alissa: Huge thanks to our meeting hosts. We cannot do this activity without our Sponsors, and our especially our Hosts. They provide a huge amount of financial support, not just for the cookies and the amazing food that's been provided. Huge thanks to our sponsors. We have a small token of appreciation, so if I can first invite Cullen Jennings from Cisco to come up. [hand shake and pictures]. Next I'd like to invite Ryan Cue from Huawei to come on up. [hand shake and pictures.] Ryan: Thank you Alissa. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to host the first-ever meeting in Bangkok. And alos thank our old friends, Cisco. And the local hosting THNic. I am Ryan, I am the Standardization VP of Huawei. We are responsible for all IETF activities in Huawei. Huawei has been and will continue our strong commitment to IETF. We are working with all the talents here to make IETF a success. We are happy to have a meeting here in this beautiful country. We all know the talent in Bhutanese country and we understand the mission is making people living better, which is very familiar with our IETF mission, Make the Internet Work Better. We hope we enjoy the meeting discussions and also the food in this beautiful city. 3. Local Host appreciation - THNic Alissa: We also had a local host. When we go to a new location it is helpful to have a local host who can assist with logistics, visa issues, bringing in other local sponsors. THNic was incredibly helpful to us. Please help me in thanking THNic. [hand shake and pictures] 4. Updates 4.1 IETF Chair report Alissa: Moving on to my report. Some participant statistics. Some meeting experiments. Short update on IASA 2.0. And reminders of standards of professional behavior. Alissa: Participant statistics. We have 846 attendees onsite. 107 first time attendees, and if you remember back to Singapore last year had 1018 attendees onsite. We're a little bit down there. We have participants from 56 countries, which is on par for any meeting. There are many different theories why there were fewer people at this meeting than there have been in a very long time. We don't have enough data to be able to explain that. People can make guesses but we're going to gather more data about this meeting to see why fewer people showed up at this meeting. We'll be putting some questions in our post-meeting survey to help us understand what kept people from coming to this meeting. This graph shows meeting attendance back to IETF 72. You can see it fluctuates based on time of year and location of meeting. This one is quite a bit lower than recent history. First time attendees total is also a bit down from its normal fluctuation. If you look at attendance by country, I just cherry-picked a few countries and regions. If you look at the five I picked, this also fluctuates by country and region. I didn't write the meeting region on the slide, but you can probably guess. That's not a surprising pattern. But our trend lines from most Asian countries where we draw our participants is fairly flat, and from other regions attendance are down, which explains the overall number. Alissa: Trends in remote participation. We did not include 103 because the meeting is not complete yet. Remote participation fluctuates between 400 and 700 remote participants. And most attend one or two sessions. Other statistics on number of times they joined the mic queue, remote presentations, and unique remote presenters. If you look at that compared to number of people remote participating, it's a good ratio. We're getting good participation from our remote folks. Alissa: Trends from the Hackathon. Trend line is going upwards, given that attendee participation is down this time, that we had record attendee participation for the Hackathon is notable. We had 28 different projects at the Hackathon, 250 onsite attendees and 32 remote. We will have the Hackdemo Happy Hour on Monday night. Would appreciate feedback on if this is an interesting event. If there are ways to improve that you can talk to me or Charles Eckel. Next Hackathon will be in Prague prior to IETF 104. Alissa: Onto our experiments. This meeting we are running an experiment to not have WGs meeting on Friday. We shortened some of the slots so we could accommodate the same nukber of groups in fewer days. We have provided for space for ad hoc meetings on Friday, and we currently have four meetings scheduled. So the idea was to introduce more time in the week for ad hoc collaboration. And to allow people to come in for the Hackathon to not have it extend over multiple weekends. We got a lot of feedback that maybe Friday is not the ideal day, maybe having partial days would be better. The pressure this put on scheduling coflicts, co-located meetings, such as the IEEE 802 meeting happening next week, so freeing the up Friday didn't necessarily help those attending both. But this is an experiment. We definitely want your feedback. If there are other ways to make the IETF meeting week and the agenda work better for you we want to hear about it. Please send email to the IESG. Alissa: We're also experimenting with ways we advertise side meetings. We got a lot of feedback from people that it was hard to keep track in your calendar and finding out what was going on in the side meeting space. As the meetings became more popular, we provided a single wiki for those side meeting sign ups, and we provided a link for an ics calendar. We are very careful to label thses as unofficial side meetings, because they do continue to be unofficial. Not sanctioned by the IESG or the IETF. Please send your feedback about this experiment. Alissa: And the HotRFC experimental session. This is for short lightning talks. I think this time they were four minutes long. They are to find collaborators, and to promote barBoFs and side meetings. The proceedings are available online, so if you missed the session, you can find the slides. We are open to feedback of we should keep doing this. Aaron Falk put in huge effort to get this going, and thanks to him for that. Alissa: Update on the IASA 2.0. For those who have not been following along, this is the effort to re-factor the IETF administrative structure. In August, we created the IETF Administration LLC, which is a called a disregarded entity of ISOC. It is its own entity, for administration and fundraising for the IETF. We have a working group called IASA 2 which is documenting all of the changes to the process documents for the new entity. The WG has a long document queue, many of the documents have small changes, but some have bigger changes. It will be churning out a lot of process document updates in the next few months. Alissa: A reminder of our standards of professional behavior. We strive to treat every one with dignity, decency, and respect. We have this documented in RFC 7154. There are also guidelines and policies of anti-harrassment, and the photo policy. You can reach out to our ombudsteam, their address is ombudsteam@ietf.org. Alissa: There is a lot more online. We publish a report in advance of every meeting, and there are lots of links in the materials. I encourage people to check out the IETF Blog. We have contributions from people all the time, so please check that out. 4.2 IAB Chair report Ted Hardie: Howdy. The IAB report for IETF 103. There was a request at the last IETF that the IAB make its agendas public, and it make the meetings open to observers. Those are both now current practice. If you've downloaded this report, the first link is to the agendas, and the second it to a subscribe able calendar to help you keep track of how to dial in. We've also had a couple of RFCs published. RFC 8477 is the report of the IOTSI Workshop, and RFC 8462 is from the MaRNEW Workshop. Both of those are late, so we sent out a question to the community about formats for those, and there has been some discussion already, but you are welcome to join that conversation if you have opinions. The IAB also sent a comment to the Australian Government about a piece of legislation, the Australian Assistance and Access Bill. Its complicated, so I encourage you to read the comment. Ted: We have made a number of appointments; Tim Wiciniski to the CCG, which advises the IETF Trust; reappointed Ole Jacobsen to the ICANN NomCom; and the RFC Oversight Committee has a new group there - headed by Sarah Banks as chair, Tony Hansen, Adam Roach, Peter Saint-Andre, Robert Sparks, and Christian Huitema is the current set of members. We are always looking for volunteers. We are currently looking for people for the ICANN TLG; the IAB's internal Plenary Planning Program; we are also looking for a new IRTF Chair because the current incumbent will be standing down at the next IETF. It's not issued yet, but we will be looking for people for the ISOC Board of Trustees. Ted: We are also two workshops in preparation. One called ESCAPE which is focused on Web Packaging, and one called CIPE which is thinking a great deal about consolidation and asymmetry. You are always able to send email to the IAB at IAB dot org, or join the architecture discuss list if you want to be part of a larger public conversation. Thanks very much. 4.3 IRTF Chair report Allison Mankin: 4.4 Administrative topics 4.4.1 IAOC/IETF LLC Board report Portia Wenze-Danley: I get a chance to be nice thank the hosts. Huawei and Cisco, we really appreciate everything you've done to make IETF 103 a success. As Alissa mentioned it took a lot to get to Bangkok. We could not have made this happen without THNic Foundation. They were instrumental in getting letters of invitation done for us, and also for securing local sponsors for us. We really appreciate everything THNic foundation did for us. Additionally, THNic helped us with securing our Gold Sponsor, NBTC. Some of you may have seen them we gave them a tour of the IETF, and they were very interested in learning about how the IETF works, and are very interested in having us come back to Bangkok. Portia: Our Silver Sponsor, Microsoft, and our Bronze Sponsor The Best VPN. And of course our Connectivity Sponsors, who were able to get our circuits in to the Marriot Marquis on time, BKNIX, NTT Communications, and TRUE. Portia: I mentioned earlier that THNic Foundation was instrumental in getting local sponsors. Those sponsors are 3BB, NTT Communications, and TCC. We were also supported by TCEB, they were helpful by getting the IETF listed on their MICE calendar, which made a big difference in the visa process for some of our attendees. Portia: And for a successful Hackathon, we thank Cisco DEVnet and NBCUniversal. For our Systers Lunch sponsors, Fastly, Comcast, and NBCUniversal. We have a list of volunteers who give their time in the Code Sprint. And for the NOC and the volunteers lead by Jim Martin; our vendors Linspeed lead by Rick Alfvin, and MeetEcho for our remote access. Portia: We invite those interested to the Host Speaker Series tomorrow; Challenges of Evolution Towards Autonomous Network. Please come if you can. And our next meeting will be IETF 104, in Prague March 23-29. We have a co-host lined up, but are looking for another to share bringing that meeting to Prague. You can get it contact with Ken Boyden. Portia: Next slide is the Future Meeting Venues. Prague, Montreal 105, Singapore 106, 107 Vancouver, 108 Madrid, 109 Asia, 110 Europe, and 111 we will be in San Fancisco. We are very fortunate to have hosts for four of those meetings. If you see an opportunity and your company might be interested, please see Ken Boyden. Please applaud our sponsors. Thank you. [Applause] Glenn Deen: Currently, I am the chair of the IAOC and the IETF Administration LLC. Back in August we became a legal entity. About a year and a half ago we spun up the IASA2 working group. We made a lot of progress in a short amount of time. Jason Livingood and Jon Peterson are the chairs of the working group and have done a great job of shepherding the work to become an LLC. It means we became a legal entity and can sign contracts for ourselves, in the past all contracts had to be signed by ISOC. We are able to take donations directly. We are able to hire staff and contractors. We can do resource planning on our own. We have a budget and we have to live with it. Glenn: A couple of changes. Under the IAOC, we had an IAD, in the past it was Ray Pelletier, currently Portia Wenze-Danley has been the interim for the past year. That position has been eliminated, and been replaced by the IETF Executive Director. So Portia will fill that as an interim position. The permanent position will have an executive search and they will select the Executive Director. The big change is the IAOC has gone away. It is replaced by a board of directors. The core board is five people, one chosen by the IESG, one chosen by the ISOC Board of Trustees, and three chosen by NomCom. This is a process that is going on right now. So if you are interested in commenting on that, Scott will take feedback. Glenn: The current board to start us up is made up of the IAOC Chair (LLC Chair), the chair of the IESG, the chair of the IAB, and the chair of the ISOC Board of Trustees were given that task. We've been making basic decisions, but our main mission is to transition from the IAOC, keep the lights on, and our goal is to hand it off when the board is seated around IETF 104. They will take up from there and do all the hard work. Glenn: This is the last meeting the IAOC will be around. I wish to thank all of them for their service. Turns out that people cleverly we put in the rules of the IETF Trust Agreement that to be a trustee you had to be a member of the IAOC. So if we had turned off the lights when the LLC spun up in August all the Trustees would have vanished. So we've been updating the legal agreements. That work is done, so we can finally sunset the IAOC. Glenn: There is a new LLC Board website. All our meeting reports are up there. We are committed to true transparency. All our meetings are public, they are posted on the Web page. You can come and listen in, the only time we have to close them is when we go into executive session to talk about finances. Lets talk about numbers. One of the things we worry about is the budget. As Alissa said we are down in registration. One of the things we talked about coming in to 103 was we changed the break down of what you pay to come. And when the cut off were for early-bird, standard, and late fees. We had 833 paid attendance, which is 157 fewer that projected. We issued 261 letters of invitation. And the registration revenue was $611,000. That is less than projected. The new fee structure helped us not be as bad as we could be. Good news is sponsorship is up. About the new fee structure. The Early bird rate is good until seven weeks before the meeting. After that and up to two weeks before the meeting it's the Standard Rate. And after that if you've forgotten to register there is the Standard plus late fee. Turned out people did hear about the early bird, we had a couple of hitches in the reg system for that early on, but it was fixed very quickly, thank you to the Secretariat for that. 4.4.2 IETF Trust report Kaveh Ranjbar: Hello. At the moment we have eight trustees. As Glenn mentioned all of the IAOC members had the option to become a trustee, with the changes, two drafts have been approved for publication. Changes the structure of how people can be appointed to the trust. The IETF Trust Agreement and Trust Administrative Procedures have been updated to reflect that. IANA domain transfer is complete. By design this was a slow process, with testing to make sure it works as expected. Now you own IANA.com, net, and org. The 2019 Budget was passed. The funding moved from ISOC to LLC. If you want to be a trustee, the NomCom is looking for nominees. Please sign up if interested. 4.4.3 NomCom report Scott Mansfield: Hi. [putting on sweater] I didn't realize this meeting was in Minneapolis. I'd like to thank the previous speakers for doing my job for me. Please get out and vote. This is the NomCom report for 103. That's the sorting hat. We are in the spinning wheel part of the process. So first, its yee-haw time of herding cats. This is our composition. If you're a NomCom member. please stand, it's a lot of work and we need to appreciate the people doing it. For thomse who have not seen the announcements I've put out, I'd like to point out the Web site. We want to continue to receive feedback. It's a simple interface. The tooling is excellent. There are three waves this year. IETF Chair, IESG, and IAB are in the first wave. There are five stages. Nominate, Feedback, NomCom interviews, NomCom deliberates, and NomCom delivers the slate to the confirming body. IETF Chair, IESG, and IAB, closed nominations, in process of feedback and interviews and are deliberating already. Thank you to the comminuty. LLC Board, nominations are closed, feedback is open today. If you have feedback, please provide feedback. Interviews will be late November early December, and will deliver to the confirming body in February. For IETF Trust, Nominations are open, we currently have two but we need more than two, we need to fill three. We'll open it out for feedback. This is where we are in the process. Scott: What do I want you to do? We need community feedback for IETF Chair, IESG, and IAB. We want more feedback. We have more office hours tomorrow. Community feedback for LLC Board members is Now OPEN! Looking for people that have experience running things. Business managers and board members. Trust nominations are open. And everyone nominated we need your questionnaires! Okay, now we know why it was called the spinning wheel. The theme of this is getting the work done and doing the deliberations. In IETF 102 I talked about being extraordinary. Take it seriously and comments on who is most able to do the job. This time the theme is getting the work done. Participate in the process. If you don't like the way its done, we have the ability to provide feedback of a general nature, please do so! The tooling helps. Its important to talk to one another and provide the feedback. Scott: Because I am in a roomful of engineers I need to provide some statistics. I looked at some numbers from other NomComs, and this is the data we can see. I took this screen shot yesterday when we were at 717 comments, we are now at 800 and something. So the community is providing feedback in a lot of different areas. There is a trend, that there are a lot of nominees for position but very few people accept the nomination. We're trying to figure out why that is. This is something we'd like to know from the community. There is a comment on the feedback page that allows someone to tell us why they did not accept the nomination. There are also places when we had very few nominees or we're in a position in RTG or OPS where the number of slots matches the number of nominees and its easy as long as the candidates are qualified. Why we're constantly asking for a large pool to work from. Harder for the NomCom, but in the end we get better leadership positions filled. Scott: Here is an example, where we get the number who accepted the nomination is greater than the number that declined. And then there are some positions where the number that declined was more than the number that accepted. Not just picking on INT, that was just the one I saw first. If we look at it this way, the only group of people seem to have less than fifty percent declining the nomination is IAB. We want to know why. Scott: Thank you for your response. Keep up the work, and thanks to those people who have accepted the nomination to run. Keep the feedback coming. Find great people for the Trust. Thank you. Spencer Dawkins: Thank you for an informative report. No red circle around TSV? Scott: This was meant to spark a discussion. I could have circled everything to point out a few things. Spencer: So I wanted to say you showed up saying you were worried about this. Mirja and I was talking with the Transport area WG chairs and review team. The larger thing is this is not your problem to solve. It's a community problem to solve. I was on the hook for some updates to the NomCom, and it hasn't happened yet because you're relying on an IESG member to do them. I think we need more community engagement. I was talking to the chairs and review team to think out of the box. Not only do we have only one nominee, we have a nominee who has served before. I'm not coming back. This is not a winning plan to bring them back again and again. Get the community talking before the next NomCom is seated. Sean Turner: Someone standing for the LLC Board a Shauna Turner? Not me. People have been asking me. Not me. Melinda Shore: Easy question, on the IAB nominations, there were 20 accepted nominations, and 21 returned questionnaires? Scott: Yes. We had some tooling problems that were my own doing. I think there is one that is in there twice. Thank you! Alissa: To improve your sense of humor get stuck in a windowless room for ten hours a day interviewing people and come out even funnier than you were. Thank you Scott and the NomCom for all of your work. We talked about what Spencer said we have talked about this and I think we need to take a longer term view of this. Its hard to make adjustments between March and June. Hopefully we can work on together. 4.4.4 RFC Editor report Heather Flanagan: So, its been a while since I was here. I have been submitting reports about code to change the RFC format. So for those who are new, we are working on changing the RFC Format from plain text ASCII only to something more flexible, XML which translates well to other formats. We will have text, PDF/A3 as the archival format, and HTML. SVG line art in black and white. Not color, as color is really hard. We're looking to allow non-ASCII characters. There is an FAQ I update. Instead of here are tools we want, to links to pages of tools you can see. Not submit through, but you can start playing with the tools. You can play with that on the tools page from XML to RFC. I am not doing a live demo, but here is a screen shot of what I generally see. Table of contents on one side, content laid out a little more attractive. There is Javscript. It is not required, but it is there for people who want to use it. If you were in the WG Chairs lunch you got a few more details of the gory details. Six to nine months. Heather: We also looked at what GitHub looks like from a copy editor's perspective. But the document was published, it was RFC 8446. We will continue the experiment, and are working with the IESG for an appropriate next target. If you are curious to the process we followed, ther eis a link here and you can see it. We will publish a final report once we get the second document done. Lastly, my contract as RSE and the RPC have been with ISOC, and now moving to the LLC. 5. IETF 104 preview Ladislav Lhotka: Hi everyone. My pleasure to present on behalf of CZNic. Prague has become the single-most frequent location. I believe most of you have attended at least one meeting in Prague. I can probably stop here. Those who have know pretty much what to expect the venue will be the same. Hilton Hotel close to historical center, with a number of restaurants around. Prices of meals and beer have risen, but willing to be extremely pleasant. As for weather, during IETF 68 it was snowing and temperatures were near freezing. But the IETF folks in shorts and sandals were quite easy to recognize among the local population. On the other hand, temperatures in March can be in the range of 20+ C. So please check before you leave. But I can promise you meeting room temperatures will be higher than here. Ladislav: I have a couple of slides showing places outside of Prague, so take it as a tip for trips. Karlstejn Castle built by Charles the fourth. Served for storing Imperial Insignia. Quite close to Prague reachable by train. Cesky Krumlov is a picturesque city located along the meandering river. Still worth visiting. And Kutna Hora, relatively small city. Used to compete with Prague for importance. Its an hour east of Prague. Finally, some slides less known places in Prague. The Strahov Library one of the most beautiful libraries in the world. Next to the library is the Strahov brewery. Kubism was started in Paris, but in there were followers and artists of cubism as well in Prague. House at the Black Madonna. and the Zizkov Rocket, the TV tower. It divided the Prague population. The tower is located at the top of the hill and called the Rocket. The haters wish it would go away and never some back. You can find an observation deck with a beautiful view of Prague. Thank you for your attention. 6. Recognition Glenn Deen: We don't want to let the IAOC pass without recognizing the people who served on the last IAOC [handshakes and pictures with all IAOC members]. 7. IAB open microphone session Ted Hardie: Three members needed to attend remotely. So we'll start there. [IAB Introduces themselves, included Robert Sparks, Brian Trammell, and Suzanne Woolf, participating remotely, and Heather Flanagan as the RSE] Sean Turner: Thank you for not picking a random technical topic and making us stay longer. Thanks. Neils ten Oever: Thank for publishing a new draft on consolidation, I am appreciative of you publishing it, but it has a few understaning do not share about efficient markets and how they work, and about whether economy shapes technology or technology shapes economy. So whether I think it's a great topic, I think it can do with more analysis from international participation economy lens and we'd be happy to participate in that. Jari Arkko: Thank you for your comments and interest. We've pubished a draft as a personal draft, and we're interested in progressing it, and part of that process is to invite others to join the work, perhaps yourself. So we're soliciting for additional participants and there is discussion on the architecture discuss mailing list. I welcome people join in. We are interested in getting more text contributions and co-authors for this document. There is a need to be able to measure how the Internet is doing here. So any researchers willing to look at measurements in this space. Happy to take your feedback and we can chat about it. Andrew Sullivan: Despite what Sean said about not picking a random topic and making everyone sit here longer, one of the things I've always liked is when we had a technical topic. We had one sort of large scale and look at bigger ideas. I wonder if there is a plan to revive the technical topic program so you have the input queue that would allow that success. Melinda Shore: Yes. We are soliciting members for the technical plenary program, and we are planning to have a technical topic in Prague. So yeah, we've just had some problems pulling something together that is of the quality needed for this audience. Ted: We're also considering having technical talks and conversations for smaller audiences during the week rather than the whole of the IETF. One of the difficulties in finding good topics is that there are some good meaty topic that fit only one or two of the layers of the IP development space, and therefore not interesting to people not working in that space. So identifying those topics and having smaller meetings around them is something we're considering within the plenary planning program. Aaron Falk: I have been concerned about the drop off in BoFs and new works. I am asking you because the IAB has the role as BoF shepherds. Maybe there is a way that information can be shared with the broader community. Broaden the pool of helpers beyond the IAB. I realize its as much for the IESG. Alissa: So I think its an interesting idea. The process now works the IESG requests a shepherd from the IAB, not the other way around. But we are all open to new work, and if the IAB hears something they can do it. In terms of the pipeline of new ideas, we've tried to make it more of an open process, and get the information earlier in the last round,a nd change dthe important meeting dates to hear about ideas sooner so we can provide more help for successful BoF proposals and BoFs. We've changed how we work a little bit, so we don't have to have a BoF in order to get a working group chartered, and that is something we're doing more and more. And so the cycle allows something to get chartered quickly. I look at this more as a case-by-case basis. Are there specific technologies are we missing the boat on things that should come to the IETF and they're not. I think its hard to compare over time because we've changed the way that we work. Aaron: Did changing the dates have any effect? Alissa: I don't think so, not yet. We had one signal of something early, but as with anything in the IETF we have to try it at least three cycles before we see if there is any effect. I think we'll try it again. ? : Maybe it time to relax the two BoF rule. Some groups may need more iterations to get things right. Ted: I think that is more a topic for the IESG. Spencer Dawkins: Thank you for thinking about min-plenary stuff during the week. I wasn't at IETF 102 when the IRTF had the ANRW, and I think it really helped to cross-fertilize stuff. Smaller plenaries during the meeting week seems really positive. Responding to Aaron's thing, I was also freaked out about the amount of BoFs we had, but when you look at the amount of work, people coming in to HotRFC and we had a 200 person room and I'm not sure people didn't come in because they couldn't find a seat. That's what a success looks like to me. I'm not worried about people finding their way here to do things. We talked about ways to bring new work in, but it seems Transport is one of the ones that's more difficult because things have been tried and had failed years ago. Half that group showed up at the LOOPS side meeting on Tuesday, and that was the most positive I've seen lately. We can do a better job of training people, we did a tutorial on bringing new work to the IETF, but it might be informative. Eliot Lear: In answer to Aaron, we had a really successful side meeting on IOT onboarding. Not everything we do here has to turn into a working group. Thanks Christian for participating, and Gabriel. For those interested, please drop me an email. We're going to start a mailing list, and we're doing some GitHub collaboration as well. One more comment about the HotRFCs, it was really successful, but it seems like the conflict of events is an issue. And that's a problem. Lucy Lynch: I am one of the people who asked for more transparency from the IAB and I want to say thank you for responding. [Applause] 8. IESG open microphone session [The IESG introduces themselves] Alissa: Mics are open. Wes Hardaker: I come with my IETF guides program. It is responsible for introducing new attendees to the culture of the IETF. It is unique in many positive and admittedly negative ways. It is our job to help new participants understand that. I remember my first meetings, and was afraid of the heated passion aimed at me, rather than my work. Far too many times I've heard "that's a stupid idea" rather than "I see some technical problems in your approach, can we talk about it?" There is a huge but subtle difference over telling someone they are wrong, and showing them where their thinking may have gone wrong. So to the participants, new and not, I urge you to carefully consider your words in email and at the microphones. Concentrate on the technical topic. Even if you are talking to someone with an IETF thickness skin. Please use the time to understand your words will be heard by more than the intended recipient. To the document authors, I urge you to think of the question, what will you do when the time for your document goes to Last Call that enough people will review it. To chairs, I encourage you to have active and constructive debate. And to the IESG I ask, what tools can you offer to allow consensus to be built rather than shut down? Finally, to the Newcomers, thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your comments have been eye opening and shocking. We all will retire someday, and stop participating. Please ensure our distinct way of getting to consensus continues into the future. Its okay to be passionate. Alissa: Can I ask, for any of the incidents you heard about, did you use any of the escalation mechanisms we have available. Wes: I was thinking about that earlier today, and I think I failed in that way as well. To be perfectly honest, I'm quite sure I've been on the negative attitude side - nobody's perfect. I ask us to reflect on ourselves. I encourage those people who talked to em to bring your stories to the ombudsteam. Alissa: You asked about tools, and our culture is what we make it. And like you did you put that Guides hat on and you think about this from the lens of the newcomer. And other people who have been here longer and know each other pretty well, you don't think about applying the same standard evenly, event to those you know well. So I think the more we exercise some of those tools, it set a standard for behavior so it doesn't matter if its your first day or your 100th meeting. Warren Kumari: I've introduced people before and had to say to them, don't be alarmed if you see people shouting at each other at the mic. That's not a reasonable thing to have to warn people about. And perhaps a reminder about confrontational tone would be helpful. This is a culture we build ourselves. Wes: There is a culture of people who know each other well, and can yell at each other and then be seen drinking a beer together an hour later. The problem is those types of statements don't help the newcomer. And it will prevent newcomers from participating and that's a real problem. Spencer: Thank you for serving, Wes. Our increased awareness about how difficult we are to live with is because we started paying attention to it. We haven't gotten worse. This is a proess for everybody. When I started attending I am sure there were people back then who vanished withour a ripple. So you're giving us what it looks from the other end of the room. Thank you. Wes: I don't do this alone, Neils is my co-chair, so you can talk to either one of us. Kathleen Moriarty: Five or six years ago a new AD was added to Routing, and then RAI and APPS merged to the new ART area. How is that working, is it still necessary? I don't have nay insight to the discussions. Is this something that was discussed? Seeing as there were two openings for routing and only two people, I thought it was time to raise the question. AAdam: We had a conversation about the fact of the work in ART is kind of contracting. WebRTC was a big push, and we're about to put the last bits of those documents to the RFC Editor, and there is a good chance that a year from now we will probably look at going from three to two in ART. As a practical matter. Ben Campbell: I agree. Unless we see a big uptick, we will talk about going to two. At the same time, I've really enjoyed having three, because I have two people to bounce things off of. I've found that very helpful. I realize it doesn't scale, but I've enjoyed it. Alexey: I think it worked very well. Two areas merging worked well, too. Deborah: In Routing, we talked about it. We still have a huge publication queue in the groups. We decided to keep going. I think its important to get the queue moving. Alvaro: Having the three, it has given us time to other things like routing security. So that's important. We talk about this periodically and when it comes to submit descriptions to the NomCom. Kathleen: Thank you. I am glad you're discussing it. Spencer: I wrote the RFC who gave us three-AD areas. When I was woring on it, I talked to Scott Bradner. He wrote a document where most of the IESG was working at-large. We've got a little bit of the ability to do that, because you can have an AD for a working group who is not the area the group is in. The tools now support this. This is the kind of work we do. Benoit Claise: I like the way the IETF is moving in transparency. I think we can go further by disclosing the source of funding for the IESG and IAB leadership. Alissa: You mean in places its not clear already? Or something more than that? Like I work for Cisco, I think its known, like that? Benoit: In your case its obvious, but in some cases its not that obvious. Warren: Like, I am Warren Kumari, I work at Google, I have never received any pressure to push a specific position when balloting on document, and I am extra vigilant about it. I am also a no- fee consultant for BROOT, like that? Benoit: Yes. Terry: Thank you, I think that is a good thing. I am happy to disclose who pays me, when they pay me. I am happy to disclose when I have a conflict of interest of any other ICANN person doing draft work. Deborah: On the IESG description page, it had photos and bios. Some people do put their funding, and we should make sure its updated. Warren: To follow up from that, when Stephen Farrel was an AD he had a little thing saying he got funding on the page. Alissa: We can discuss it. Seems simple enough to do. [Olesh?]: For years I've heard surveillance is an attack on the internet and we're interested in users privacy and for the first time this week I was in a working group and while we got privacy reviews and people were told go away we don't want you here. In the discussion, it came that there is no process for doing this. There is no privacy section required, so don't lets do it. I would like to encourage you look over that and maybe require a privacy section as we require a security section. Alissa: I was one of the authors of RFC 6973, which is an IAB document about privacy protocols. We concluded at the time that some protocols where it is fairly straightforward, and some where the privacy considerations are distinct from the security considerations. Other cases where that doesn't make sense. That document was published five years ago, and at the time it was felt to leave that more open and flexible. But the document does provide a lot of guidance about the kinds of privacy issues should be addressed. It is advisory, not mandatory. But between 6552, about how to write a security consideration section and some other IAB documents, there is a lot of guidance out there. If you think there is more, or if we need to draw them together and revisit the decision of 6973 that is fodder for community discussion. Ben Campbell: These things get paid attention to at IESG Evaluation. We do care about this. Adam Roach: I thins ties back to what Wes was highlighting about when people show up in working groups that we don't put them off in that way. Yours is not the first story I've heard recently of people providing input and being told to go away. I want everyone to think carefully about how their actions are perceived. Wes Hardaker: We've done a lot of research into the power of deverse thinking, and the way to get new creative directions can't happen without as many people as possible, which means you have to listen to as many people as possible. And as many walks of life. And if you don't your product isn't going to be as good as it could have been. Max Pala: I wanted to follow up on what Wes was saying about negative attitude to affect some ability to bring work here. I fear this problem is underestimated. My first meeting was twenty years ago, but sometimes I've been discouraged and I feel its gotten worse and worse in recent years. Not IETF at its best. We are passionate and to bring passion into our work, but we don't want to block work for no reason. I have other venues I can go to, but I don't want to. But I also don't want to be attacked. So I think I would like to have a more articulate answer to the problem. Maybe solution can have more control, or chair to be more attentive. I think we can improve this. Reconsider it, and talk about it, and take it seriously. Alissa: Thank you for telling us that. I apologize if it seems we don't take it seriously. This is a bottom up organization, so everyone needs to take it into consideration, but there is more the IESG can and will talk about. Bron Gondwana: Talking about one of the WGs last IETF, in the EXTRA Working Group where someone brought us something they wanted us to accept into the working group, and we looked at it and said this is a special case hack, please bring it back when it can be handled more generally. We got a lot of push back on that. On why we couldn't just accept it because it was easier for them. I feel like we did discourage them, but I don't see a way if they didn't want to engage in the group to help them get where they wanted. Alissa: I think there is an important distinction between your comment and the one from Max. One is aggressive attacking behavior. The other is some work progresses and some doesn't. Two ways to send a message. Not every piece of work that comes into the IETF comes out of it. I think these are seperable problems. Barry Leiba: I was there at this discussion. It was definitely the technical aspects of the work they brought, not attacking them. It was all on the technical aspects and no one was saying "you're stupid go away" or anything like that. However, I agree with Bron that the message they took away from that discussion was "go away" and I'm not sure what we can do about that. Nalini Elkins: It seems to me there is some fundamental problems in achieving consensus. In some groups we tend to ge the in-crowd, and if you've put a lot of effort into the group. I've seen people get stuck in their positions. You can see it happen of the camps forming, and you end up not working together well. I started working with Hening on why things fail along the way. Of people not working with each other long term. Spencer: I've tried to help some people to bring new proposals to the IETF whether BoF or proposals for WGs. Our responsibility is helping people understand, if you just want your thing approved that's not a working group thing. Working groups should be working on things. People need to work on things together. Warren: You identified a problem. But I didn't hear a possible solution. Nalini: I started working on a draft with Henning. It's a psychological dynamics. Its not an easy solution. I find we don't come together too often. If anyone wants to work on this with me, come talk to me. Marc Blachet: Its not just newcomers, its for everybody. When people are presenting, people come to the mic interrupting with various excuses about clarification questions and you come to multiple people having side conversation having a conversation over the mic when the answer to the question is the next slide coming. To me, that's a lack of respect to the presenter. For when I am chairing, I ask people to wait until the end of the presentation to ask their questions. That would be an improvement and better respect. Alissa: Sounds like a good thing for chairs to keep in mind. John Levine: A key aspect of consensus is standing aside. Rough consensus means there is a point when you can be not happy about something, but not enough to block it, so you stand aside. We're not very good at it. With all due respect, sometimes you can work really hard on something and be very passionate about it and its still can be a bad idea. I know the guy Bron was talking about, I've known him for a long time. He was basically a tourist who had this thing he wanted to get passed, and didn't want to learn about our process, and he's never coming back. Along with not being mean, there is a certain amount of humility. Amelia Andersdotter: I have a few procedural issues. Is it the IESG view that privacy considerations in a draft would ever be prohibited, and does it need to get the approval of the IESG before it was formulated. And I would also like to know if your answer differs if it was a human rights consideration instead. Alissa: As far as I know nothing is prohibited in an Internet-Draft. Besides color. Color is prohibited. You can't put it in color. But other than that. Amelia: So its up to the working group? Alissa: For a working group, yes the working group decides what goes in. At the end of the process the IESG reviews all the drafts and we have to come to some agreement to publish. But no prohibitions. Other than color. Bret Jordan: Thank you for the efforts of the IESG. I have noticed an increase in the toxicity of some working groups. I think in some regards individuals bad behaviors are getting rewarded. Chairs can do a better job of asking if there is support for ideas brought forth. Maybe more care be given to reduce the toxicity. I am relatively new as an active partipant. I am getting to the point to say screw it because its been painful and difficult. Alissa: Thank you. I would make a request. I know some of the example people are speaking of, I would ask you to find an AD and talk about these. I want to make sure we can get the full scope here. Please do this if you feel comfortable about it. Adam: I've seen on mailing lists a couple of different terms used somewhat interchangeably. Newcomer and tourist - and the only difference is a newcomer is a tourist you have not chased away. Melinda Shore: I disagree with at little bit. A tourist could just be there to learn something so they don't participate. They may just sit and listen. Anyway. We do consensus really badly. I am convinced this is a training problem. We treat humming as a vestigial form of voting. Way to say I disagree but I'm not going to block it. Training is key and would help make these decisions. Alissa: Thank you. Michael Richardson: I got up when Jordan was speaking. I would like some training. As a chair. I don't know where it would fit into the week. I would like some evaluation - not necessarily from you guys, who I am sure are not HR experts. We should have someone come into the sessions and spend some time with the mailing lists and try to give us some feedback on whats going on. I think that would be useful. Particularly in the groups where it has become vile. Spencer: I did a tutorial on Sunday afternoon, and was talking to people. I didn't know we were doing a small overview Webinar a couple of weeks before. I think that's great to learn another time. We can do more. Alvaro: We've been doing chair training for the last few years and topics are management topics. Also an interesting talk on managing conflict. We don't always get all our chairs. We have recorded the sessions. We can post the links somewhere. We try to do these once a year. We can also advertise this more broadly. Alissa: We can circulate the links. Brian Dixon: I was going to ask about the recordings of the sessions. I was watching one of the sessions I don't usually attend. It was highly toxic and it seemed to be the chair making it worse. Being able to review the sessions. Having an HR type be able to review would be good. Bron Gondwana: I joined in Chicago. I went to MOG before hand and got training how to deal. It was a nice way in here. Tourists have a goal and don't want to engage with IETF, newcomers want to give as much as they take from the group. The equal give and take expected of you. I came in knowing it was a lot of work. Kathleen: For training, if you have a level for the chairs it would be useful to have one in general for everyone. Consensus and humming, a broader topic for everybody. Karen O'Donoghue: I am the lead of the EDU team for the IETF. We've talked about WG Chairs training to improve. We could use your help. We're a small but open team. We talk about doing things first for chairs, and then open them up for everybody. Please contact us at EDU-Team at ietf dot org. Lou Berger: More training on consensus for everyone is a great idea. Not opposed to a document. If you have a document let it not say that humming is the only way, because some of us can't hear it. Alissa: We confirm on list, too. Lou: Humming is not useful, because I cannot hear it at all its all white noise. Alexander Azimov: Speaking for someone who needed to leave already, he found a problem in an protocol that is nearly done. He found himself alone in the room that there is an issue. It's a problem if people are not willing to fix a problem found at the last moment. Alissa: It's a fairly common problem. Sometimes we do end up putting the brakes on. To me the more concerning thing you said he was afraid to raise this. Nobody should be afraid to raise a technical issue. Please let us know the specifics because we can help resolve it. Alissa: Thank you IESG. Welcome the IAOC and LL to the stage. [IAOC and LLC Board introduce themselves.] Terry Manderson: Now the LLC Board is coming into being. I ask that you live within your budget. That means when you present something and tell us about the revenue, you also tell us about the projected expenses. Because you're talking about PNLs now. You gave us revenue, but not expenses. Glenn: We are currently finishing the LLC budget. When it is finished, we will be publishing that, yes. Terry: Thank you. 9. IAOC / IETF LLC Board open microphone session Terry Manderson: Now the LLC Board is coming into being. I ask that you live within your budget. That means when you present something and tell us about the revenue, you also tell us about the projected expenses. Because you're talking about PNLs now. You gave us revenue, but not expenses. Glenn: We are currently finishing the LLC budget. When it is finished, we will be publishing that, yes. Terry: Thank you. Alice Russo: This was a question from the Jabber Room from an hour ago. I think the IAB was on stage. And I think its from John Klensin, but its not exactly clear. Afte rnoticing the internationalization work for a long time, and getting them reviewed by experts, a BoF was held in Montreal to make a plan. The BoF concluded that a special directorate should be formed to make progress. Has a directorate been formed? Or have we concluded the IETF does not care about internationalization. Alissa: Apologies about not getting a jabber scribe. The responsible Area Director is here. Alexey Melnikov: ART Ads are discussing this and we're just a bit slow on creating this. There is a plan. Glenn: Thank you all. Have a good dinner.