IABOPEN @ IETF 122 - Day 1

Chairs: Alvaro Retana & Tommy Pauly

When: Monday 17 March 2025, 15:30-16:30 UTC+7
Where: Chitlada 1

IAB Update (Chairs, 10 min)

Documents

New Work Help Desk

The IAB offers a "help desk" as an experiment to support people that
want to bring new work to the IETF:

Technical Programs

E-IMPACT e-impact@ietf.org

EDM edm@iab.org

NEMOPS Workshop Summary (Dhruv, 15 min)

Slides: IAB Next Era of Network Management Operations (NEMOPS) Workshop
Report

NEMOPS Workshop Objectives

What's Next

Call for Action

Discussion:

Dean Bogdanović: NETCONF and Yang and RestConf are based on the
technology that was developed in 1996-1997. Every time we are developing
a model, we decide to boil the ocean. We cannot say this is the minimum
core that will work for a model and then add features for whatever is
needed on the side unless we satisfy every single requirement. It is
just too complex; it does not help any vendor and the vendors are just
skipping that and asking the operators what they want directly. We
developed so many models without any operator input. I'm very happy to
see that we have now a working group where the operators are
participating and presenting their problems and also saying this is how
we are using it, where we could see the improvements. But why don't you
look into the modern software development techniques and try to apply
them into our area? Why do we have to reinvent the wheel 15 years too
late?

Dhruv: Dhody: Yes, a lot of people in the workshop brought up the same
points.

Dean Bogdanović: It's about creating testing frameworks. We have it for
software but not network management.

Andrew Campling: Just building on Dean's comment, first I think perhaps
we ought to come up with the concept of a minimum viable protocol, and
maybe that will be a good approach for the future rather than having the
perfect protocol in all cases. More generally, I think there was lots of
good learnings, very great in practical experience. But how do we get a
lot more network operators here, whether they're public network
operators or enterprise? Enterprises because we would have probably got
better answers in the first place if they'd been involved from the
outset rather than you having to have a workshop for them. So I think
that diversity of participation is really important. I look forward to
the continued discussion.

Liaison RFC Updates (Mirja & Suresh, 15 min)

| Slides: [RFC405[2 | 3]bis](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-iabopen-sessb-rfc40523bis-00) |

Next steps:

Discussion:

Andrew Campling: I think one of the issues that came up last time was
taking a long time to respond to some SDOs, and those SDOs taking
non-response as agreement.

Suresh Krishnan: A lot of the time, we cannot respond as the IETF
because we have to judge consensus, and that's not always possible in
the time frame, but the intent is that the liaison manager will
communicate the status back so that they are not left hanging.

Mirja Kühlewind: This is an issue with one specific organization and we
are looking into how to improve it.

Lucas Pardue: I skimmed the drafts and two things stuck out. One is, the
code of conduct. Are liaisons bound by the IETF of Conduct? It might be
good to reference 7154 or make a clear statement on that. The other one
is the security considerations. I wonder if we need to make something
about if another organization has a security concern and wants to report
it via liaison.

Suresh Krishnan: Liaison managers are IETF participants and bound to the
Code of Conduct, but we can make that more clear. The security
considerations are part of the liaison statement itself and not the RFC.

Charles Eckel: In terms of tracking in the WG or if action is required,
I have not seen a way to update that in the tooling.

Mirja Kühlewind: Yes, we have a long list of things we want to change in
the tooling and one is about how to more easily reply or note why we
chose not to reply.

Leslie Daigle: Under what conditions does the IETF still have liaisons
with the ITU, because previously the IETF rode in there under ISOC's
sector membership.

Mirja Kühlewind: Yes, we will need to make sure we get that correct.

Liaison Update (Martin Thomson (W3C), 15 min)

Slides: W3C Update

Working on informal cross-organization review between IETF and W3C.
Areas of particular expertise:

Discussion:

Mirja Kühlewind: What about the work in W3C in Trusted Web?

Martin Thomson: I am not sure we can do that in 2 minutes, but it is a
big concern on the Web and in society generally. The W3C has a number of
initiatives in this area and are struggling to define the scope of the
work on this. If anyone has ideas to contribute on that, come talk to me
and I can point you to the workshops. Right now it's in the spitballing
phase.

Open Mic (5 min)

IABOPEN @ IETF 122 - Day 2

Chairs: Alvaro Retana & Tommy Pauly

When: Tuesday 18 March 2025, 15:30-16:30 UTC+7
Where: Chitlada 1

World Summit on Information Security (WSIS) the 20 year review Background (Olaf Kolkman, 15 min)

Slides: WSIS+20: Background

A Government Perspective (Ian Sheldon (AU), 15 min)

Slides: WSIS+20: A Government Perspective

Pete Resnick: Generally speaking as someone from the US, I don't have a
local government that is useful to go to, but generally ISOC has been
able to give them guidance when needed. Is there something to do, or to
worry about now? Do we even know what the US position is at the moment?

Ian Sheldon: I can't speak to the US position, but if your local
government is not receptive to your particular expertise, there are
other governments that are. It's important to be clear and articulate.

Jean-François Quéralt: I rarely see people from the technical community,
but it is supposed to be govering all of the breadth of conversations
that make it possible for the Internet to exist to begin with. In an
estimate, it's 85% policy people and 15% technical. Do you think there
is any impact on the composition of the MAG to make sure there is more
participation from the techical community?

Ian Sheldon: I think it's a reflection on the submissions made by the
technical community. I think the MAG reflects the community's
submissions. The last IGF saw a huge number of proposals. Would suggest
providing more proposals to make your views known and take part of the
process.

Dean Bogdanović: I have tried reaching out to my congressmen, and they
don't care. Some don't even have a way to reach their representatives.
There is much more concern about how to control the Internet than to
leave it open. I have been thinking about it and don't know how to
change it except by providing technical standards that are open.

Ian Sheldon: I think it's an issue that has been posed a number of
times. The advice I would provide is to talk to the governments that are
here, and to tailor your messaging to make it more receptive to
governments. There is no magic bullet to help politicians take notice,
but I am happy to help with messaging.

Tommy Jensen: How valuable do you see the efforts by industry to do
coalition statements?

Ian Sheldon: [nods]

Tommy Jensen: How do you translate digital sovereignty in a useful way
without it sounding like it is insisting we can't be governed.

Ian Sheldon: I'd love to have that conversation with more time and
breathing room. It's a big, tricky, thorny issue, and different
governments have different approaches.

Sarah Jennings: Getting involved in the conversation seems challenging,
but the shared norms can't be taken for granted. They are constantly
upheld and get their legitimacy through things like the Tunis Agenda.
Need to constantly advocate for the work that you do. When it comes to
explaining some of the technical concepts that you advocate for, I think
it's just continually making the point. Coalitions, open letters--while
you may not see a response, they are being read.

Andrew Campling: We probably shouldn't be surprised that governments
want to govern, but maybe for those of us in these communities, there
have been conversations about how to more easily engage with policy
makers.

Ian Sheldon: The WSIS process will likely remain high level, but I would
say don't wait for these kinds of reviews, and work to build those
relationships now. After WSIS, we have the ITU Plenipotentiary
conference. This isn't a thing to get past, it's part of an ongoing
conversation.

Olaf Kolkman: For the person who said they can't reach their legislator,
it's often the executive branch you want to reach out to.

The Role of the IETF (Alvaro Retana for Mark Nottingham, 10 min)

Slides: WSIS+20: The Role of the IETF

Dean Bogdanović: On diversity, we got a review on this over the summer
and it was pretty good and there are things we could improve. Some of
the processes we use are hurting our diversity because we haven't
changed them in 20 years. A lot of unconscious bias around leadership
selection. On governance, I think we can contribute a lot.

Mohamed Karim: Do IETF really prepare to take part in IGF and WSIS? I am
a former MAG member, and WSIS is a process meeting. Is IETF prepared to
take part in those activities?

Alvaro Retana: We have been participating in the meetings themselves for
a number of years. It's a process.

Dmitry Kuznetsov: In one statement, there is mention of having
interoperable, non-discriminatory, demand-driven Internet, but whose
demand?

Mirja Kühlewind: It's complex because we cannot force anyone to do
anything, but we need people who are actually willling to put in the
resources to move the work forward.

Vittorio Bertola: I totally agree with the multistakeholder model. It's
good if we can make it continue. But I think we also need to have some
self-criticism of the model.

Andrew Campling: To say the IETF is improving its diversity is generous,
because the starting point was so low. I think we have to be humble
about our diversity. It's marginally better but still poor.

Tommy Pauly: In Working Groups, we tend to focus on the technical work.
Policymakers and other stakeholders are welcome in the process, and when
they are here, they make it better.

Mirja K: Being open is not enough. You need to invest in diversity. I
think we have a lot programs, but agree that it's not enough because
it's not an easy problem to solve.

Dean Bogdanović: Participating in the IETF is an economical privilege.

Open Mic (15 min)