NOVEMBER 5, 2025
ROMAN DANYLIW: Okay. We're going to get started. Good evening, everyone!
And welcome to the IETF 124 Plenary.
It's phenomenal to see everyone here in person and for those of you
around the world, thank you for joining us in whatever time zone that
you happen to be in.
It's of course -- we're, of course, back to Montreal, a great venue
we've been to many times and led to very many successful meetings.
Before we get started, I quickly want to remind everyone to what you've
already agreed to, as condition of participating in an IETF meeting.
There's a number of policies and procedures that you see outlined there,
and if you want a quick URL to get to them, please do scan that QR code.
My name is Roman Danyliw, and I'm the IETF Chair; and this evening, we
have a fairly packed agenda.
We have our various standing items where the leadership bodies are going
to give you updates. At the tail end, we're going to have an open mic so
you have an opportunity to engage with the leadership bodies. In
between, we have a couple of key important kind of speakers. First,
we're going to hear from our meeting hosts, from Glenn Deen, then from
the Internet Society, we'll have the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award
being awarded, and then we'll also hear, because this is that particular
year, we'll be hearing from our NomCom as well, and neglected to mention
all of our partners, we're going to be hearing from the IETF Trust, the
IESG, and our upcoming venue for IETF 125.
Okay. It's the obvious reminder here that this meeting has been going
very, very successfully, and the success of this meeting is predicated
on the work of a lot of different hard-working people that are not
directly sitting in the working groups, working on standards themselves.
So I would really like to recognize here and thank the secretariat, the
Meetecho team, the NOC, the LLC administrative staff that includes the
Tools Team, and the hackathons support for pulling together the
administrative things we so obviously think of and so many of the things
that we don't see that lead to a seamless meeting. So thank you so much.
[Applause]
And so for the first item of business, I would welcome to the stage our
meeting host from Comcast, NBCUniversal, Glenn Deen. Come on up, please!
[Applause]
GLENN DEEN: Hi, everybody. It's really a pleasure to be able to host
this meeting. We hosted the last time the IETF was in Montreal. It was
also hosted by NBCUniversal and Comcast.
We do this because we really, really value the work that the IETF does.
It helps every part of our business. We run networks to create content
which we distribute on networks. This work, this body, you people,
enable my company to do what it does. So this is our way of saying thank
you and helping give back to the community by sponsoring these meetings.
I'm going to keep it real short. That's it. Thank you for what you do.
We appreciate you.
[Applause]
ROMAN DANYLIW: As a token of our appreciation, we wanted to present to
your company this plaque recognizing your service. There's no
photographer this time so you just shake my hand.
And as everyone knows, I have this bad habit of pulling away the plaque.
I'll mail it to you.
You get to keep this one. That's the real plaque.
So next up, I invite the president and CEO of the Internet Society,
Sally Wentworth, to present the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award.
Thanks.
[Applause]
SALLY WENTWORTH: Good evening, everyone. As Roman said, my name is Sally
Wentworth, and it's my great honor to be here today as the president and
CEO of The Internet Society, and the Internet Society Foundation, to
present the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award.
What am I doing wrong?
There we go. Okay.
This recognition is named after a person who was well-known within this
community and who modeled a particular kind of leadership.
Through rigorous, steady, and humble service, Jon Postel always focused
on the longer-term health of the Internet. Jonathan B. Postel Service
Award is presented annually to an individual or organization that has
made outstanding and sustained contributions in service to the Internet
community. The selection criteria are focused in three areas: Technical
contributions, leadership, and service to the community. The selection
committee is composed of former Postel awardees and this year, the
committee decided to present David Clark with the 2025 Jonathan B.
Postel Service Award for his major contributions to design, and policy
for the Internet.
[Applause]
Today, we recognize David Clark not only for his technical
accomplishments but also for a lifetime of service to the Internet. As
shown by his commitment to research and to the societal and policy
implications of Internet technology, as well as into the future
architecture of the Internet. Through his work, David has helped the
community understand how to build systems that work and also why certain
choices matter for the future of an open, globally connected, secure,
and trustworthy Internet for everyone.
As chief protocol architect for the Internet from 1981 to 1989, when he
chaired the Internet Activities Board, he was instrumental in
establishing the architectural foundations that continue to serve
billions of people worldwide.
At an IETF plenary session in 1992, David outlined how decisions are
made within the IETF with his famous statement: We reject kings,
presidents, and votes. We believe in rough consensus and running code.
[Applause]
That rough consensus and running code part would go on to be one of the
cardinal principles laid out in the IETF's mission statement, in RFC3935
in 2004. Over the years, it has become a defining methodology for the
Internet standards development process within the IETF, and something
that we can all reference as an example of collaboration across the
industry.
David also has the distinction of having his words on an IETF 83 meeting
T-shirt, some of you will be familiar with that.
Unfortunately, David could not be with us today in person, but he kindly
recorded a message for this occasion.
So please join me in watching his message.
DAVID CLARK: [Video stopped]
[Laughter]
[Music]
[Video stopped]
[Pause]
ROMAN DANYLIW: We beg everyone's patient while we work through the
technical issue to get the video streamed.
SALLY WENTWORTH: Unfortunately, it sounds like we need to work out the
video so we will bring it back later in the plenary, but maybe one more
round of applause for David Clark. Thank you.
[Applause]
ROMAN DANYLIW: So while the team is working on getting the video
streamed, I'm going to pivot over and move to the next part of our
agenda, to report out on the IETF report and words from the IETF Chair.
Historically, I report on all sorts of statistics, and this is what we
always roughly report. This is the largest meeting. If you're looking at
the registration count, this is the largest meeting we've had in over
two and a half years. We have almost a record number of on-site
participation and a very high number of remote participants, and very
robust kind of hackathons, very much kind of on the high end of the
participation. And then also very much continuing with the trend that
we've always seen, about one-fifth of the participants are new to the
IETF meeting that have never been before.
So if you look to your left and right, you are in a group of five, one
of you has probably never been here before, because all new participants
know it's exciting to come to the plenary. Best thing all week. It's the
best snacks all week in fairness. Best snacks. That's, I guess, all I
can promise.
The rest is up to you at the mic line.
To benchmark again kind of contextually, the other big trend beyond
being record participation for us is also the proportion of on-site
versus remote, is in that 60-40 bands that we find across the meetings,
which is another way of saying that almost half of everyone
participating in this meeting is remote, which really kind of pushes to
how well our participation process is working in allowing everyone
around the world, regardless of whether you're civil society, academia,
government, you can come to this meeting and provide your contributions.
Another way to kind of cut the data, where are people coming from?
Overwhelmingly the participation at this North America meeting is from
North America.
The IESG, since the last time we met, has both released a couple of
statements and a number of announcements. I'm going to talk a little bit
in more detail for two of our statements that we had. One of the things
I really wanted to point out to make sure everyone benefits from,
because the IESG is pretty much committed to continuing doing this, we
ran a series of the Ask Me Anything kind of sessions on two key
procedural topics, which is, first, being the pipeline of Ask Me
Anything.
You want to be an AD? Please come to us. One of the best ways to find
out what that experience is like is to talk to those in that position.
The other thing that we very much have our eye on with our partners is
onboarding new work, and one of the ways that new work comes into the
organization is BoF. Pulling off a successful BoF is nontrivial. It
takes a lot of coordination and collaboration that may not be obvious,
so please join us in sessions like we have that will allow us to give
some advice on how to pull it off.
All right. I can better read the screens I have. Okay.
So what I wanted to do now is delve a little bit into the two statements
that we have because I'm sensitive to the fact that sometimes when the
IESG makes statements and drops it on the IETF list, everyone may not be
dropping everything that they're doing and really wondering what was the
latest missive in that communication.
So I wanted to highlight two of the more significant ones that we
published. First, we published some things related to how the appeals
process runs. Specifically, we wanted to highlight that the appeals
process we have is not for reporting noncompliance of legal matters. All
of your NomCom-appointed leadership team on the IESG and IETF do not
adjudicate legal things. We have created a structure called the IETF
Administration LLC, and that is the right place to be reporting legal
matters, especially related to noncompliance.
The best way to reach them is that alias I have listed there, which is
legal@ietf.org.
Two other rarely matters to remind everyone: the appeals process is like
any other contribution in the IETF. It's subject to our guidelines for
conduct and subject to our antiharassment policy as well.
And then the last thing that statement did which cannot be summarized
here is that it laid out a number of formatting and content requirements
to help integrate the appeals coming into the standards process.
All the details are listed there.
The other statement, this is much more recent and saw a little bit of
discussion on the broader IETF mailing list was related to how
derivative works are used. And one of the elements of that statement was
around highlighting that nonconformant, nonderivative clauses are
inconsistent with IETF policy, and they could lead to disruption in the
standards process. We got some questions how could that possibly be
disruptive. And from the IESG's perspective, we see those clauses as
disruptive in three ways. First, they're communicating false
representations of what is IETF process, which confuses newcomers and
confuses those less familiar with the IETF processes.
Second, it increases the costs of participation to everyone in the IETF,
because when they see legal blurbs in things where they should not
appear, they need to go back to their counsel to adjudicate what those
legal blobs mean and what the implications are, and that's another cost
burden.
And the most worrying element of all of that is that we have real
feedback that tells us that this silences risk-averse participants,
those that don't have the benefit of being able to quickly go to
counsel, that have, perhaps, those deep pockets, and they have in-house
corporate counsel that they can easily consult as a result. Not wanting
to face liability or risk, they remain silent and they don't contribute
to the standards process or remain silent on different parts that impact
our ability to understand things like consensus or get their valuable
perspective on those matters. So this is a little bit of the background
of why the IESG linked the use of those nonconformant legal clauses to
the standards process.
All right. So another topic I wanted to talk about, we regularly report
on how many appeals have been reported to the IESG since the last time
we met, so I'm here to report we got another three appeals and the IESG
responded to all of those appeals.
Contextually, you can see the bar chart listed there. We've seen six to
date here in 2025, and you've seen that six appeals of IESG decisions
escalated to the IAB. If we look back on a ten-year time frame, we're
seeing record highs. If you pull back 20 years, we're still a little bit
below the high water mark set in 2006. So you've got to go back real
far.
I know there are a number of participants that were probably here that
long ago that I can kind of remember. So contextually, we are in an
unusual situation where there's been a lot of feedback.
So the IESG is really kind of reflecting on all of the appeals coming
in, and I think the top-line position to really open with is the IESG's
deep commitment that the appeals are an important structural element of
the standards process, having the ability to come to leadership to
really provide feedback, that you made the wrong call, please rethink
that call, and to accept that feedback is the path that needs to be
preserved, regardless of whatever clarity or guidance is giving. That's
sacrosanct, and we need to make sure that appeals path stays ready and
clear.
Having said that, I also recognize that the IESG -- you've probably
heard the IESG has been working on a lot of these appeals, and you may
have kind of different positions on where the IESG has landed.
So I wanted to clarify that the IESG has been navigating really a fine
line between how do we deal with process adherence? How do we deal with
clarity of existing processes? And where it seems relevant to adherence
and really the substance of something in there in kind of those claims.
And it's not a clear-cut line, and the IESG welcomes feedback on how
we've been navigating that. And the eye on the prize for us is making
sure that the appeals path stays clean so everyone can kind of go to
leadership on that.
But on the flip side, we also intervene when it's required to ensure
that the standards process is operating as it should and the working
groups can continue doing the great world-changing work that they're
doing to make the Internet work better for everyone.
I don't often get a mic to talk in front of everyone. There are area
meetings all the time. The GEN area meeting, even when we have it this
small -- I want to talk about all the great things happening in the GEN
area. I largely want to say that boss people come to the IETF focused on
their particular area, and that's phenomenal. You are pushing forward in
those areas. But everything we do in GEN affects you, regardless of what
area we're on. And we would benefit always from your feedback, your
feedback or awareness on it.
So I wanted to highlight four things that are happening from the GEN
perspective and welcome you to come participate in that process. So
first, we have the MODPOD working group on moderation procedures, which
is redefining how moderation will work in the IETF. I congratulate the
working group for completing their work with Last Call, pushing it to me
for AD review. So now it's in AD processing, assuming that that feedback
is adjudicated. The core deliverable of that working group is going to
be going to IETF Last Call allowing all of you to provide feedback again
on that topic.
If you are interested in two other big structural mechanisms here at the
IETF when we publish documents, you want to explore how we specify
requirements in our documents. Join us in IANA BIS.
If you have interest in the standards process itself, documents like
2026 or the working group procedures 2418, both of those documents are
open. Please come to PROCON and contribute to what will be the new way
we do the standards process here in the IETF.
And then less visible, although I posted a few times on the IETF list,
there are some needs and changes coming for how our intellectual
property is managed; so we need to reopen the 5378, which talks about
our policy guidance and how our IPRs handle the Trust that I'm sure
Glenn is going to talk about a little bit later. If you have interest in
updating that particular document, please come to the IPR working group.
And I want to highlight some things. We want to increase our
transparency into, frankly, what's happening across the areas, what's
happening in the IESG. So we continue to be minting new dashboards, so
you can watch the work that we're doing on your behalf. Or you can watch
high-level what's happening across the working groups in a roll-up kind
of fashion.
Since the last time we met, two new dashboards have been rolled out, and
what they do is they give you a single pane-of-glass view of all the
documents in IESG processing instead of giving just an AD version of
that view. And then the other dashboard gives you different counts and
roll-ups of the size of the IETF, measured by area, measured by working
group, measured by kind of Ads, and gives you kind of a sense of what's
happening where and the size and scale of that different activity.
Okay. So I welcome to the stage a critical component of what is selected
out of the GEN area is our ombuds team, and I'm delighted to have David
talk us through some new information that we have for you.
DAVID SCHINAZI: Thank you. I'm one of the four members of the ombuds
team. So on the ombuds team these days, we have Avri who is also here
today, Shivan, Sofia, and myself. So the ombuds team deals in the
unfortunate aspect of harassment.
So when there are cases that are outside of the realm of the code of
conduct, that when it veers to harassment, we are here to help. You can
come talk to us, either in person -- feel free to talk to us at any
point or via e-mail or by e-mailing any of us at any point.
I also have a quick report over the last year to give an update on the
community on how we're doing on this front. We've had eight cases
related to e-mail on public mailing lists; one case related to in-person
behavior; one for private virtual interactions; two requests for advice.
Which, by the way if you're not sure if something is harassment, don't
hesitate to come talk to us. We're happy to provide advice. And we've
had two appeals of an ombuds team decision.
And given the confidentiality of what we do, when you talk to us, we
keep it confidential. I can't give you any more information, but you can
trust if you have a concern, we will keep it completely confidential.
All right. Back to you, Roman.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Thank you, David. And I want to thank the ombuds team for
producing that transparency report. I think it's really critical for us
to get at least a minimum sense that we can, given the confidentiality
requirements of that team, so you can see how hard they're working for
us, how hard they're working in the community.
So I want to invite to the stage Allison Mankin, who has been -- who
recently stepped down from the ombuds team, but served for almost nine
years from its inception.
She's been a foundational element to define how we run as an ombuds
team. And as you just saw David talk a little bit about the stats of
last year of all the work they're doing behind the scenes, this is
really a tireless job of pure service. By definition no one can know
what they did. No one can know how they transformed the community.
So Allison was doing that thankless job for nine years, and you've got
us bootstrapped from the very beginning. Come on up!
[Applause]
You bootstrapped us from the beginning and your commitment and tireless
service to making sure that the IETF is a place where we can get work
done, we can't say thank you enough.
And the ombuds team, and really everything we do, to make sure the
culture of the IETF is so critical to make sure -- to enable us to get
the technical work done. If we want people to come to the organization,
this has to be a place where they want to do that work. And you have
been part of helping make sure that's a place it can be done and that's
the foundation, which makes everything possible here on the Internet and
transforms us. And I want to thank you on behalf of the community for
your long, long years of service.
[Applause]
[Laughter]
ROMAN DANYLIW: I never play it correctly. Everyone knows the joke. I
can't --
ALLISON MANKIN: It wasn't a pleasure, but I think it really made a
difference to have the ombuds team. So thanks to those who pushed us to
do this. I really appreciate that we did it.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Thank you.
[Applause]
Okay. So I just wanted to call out another set of thank-yous. Your IESG
is working on your behalf really during the meetings and around the
course of the entire year. We thank the people, the sponsors. We thank
the people that pull off the meetings. But I really want to recognize
that the ability of your ADs to engage in the way they've done, the
level of commitment they're bringing in terms of their FTE each and
every week with the telechat, formal/informal, the BoF reviews. The
document reviews are only possible because, frankly, almost all of them
have some entity backing them and paying for their time. And so I want
to recognize all of those different organizations that you see there
that pay for the IESG to be able to do their work on your behalf.
[Applause]
So that is almost the end of my slot, so that's the end of my prepared
thing.
One other thing I want to add, which is a pop-up, I want to apologize on
behalf of the IESG to the community. It turns out in August, we made a
change to the Datatracker which was disruptive to a certain number of
working groups. It changed how they were processing, and we kind of
shouldn't have done that. So on an operational sense, sorry we were
disruptive. But I think the bigger thing I want to apologize for is not
so much that it's the operational disruption, I think everyone kind of
understands how tools roll out.
What we should have done is engaged with the community on the underlying
requirements and the primary users of that, and that should have been
the critical driver of how we put some of those components into
Datatracker related to the automated notices. The first principle should
have been we should have worked with the end user, stakeholders, the
working group chairs, and all the delegates that make it sustainable for
those working groups. Sorry about that. We'll do a better job. Coming up
to speed on how we pulled everything off.
There were a couple of moving parts. After the meeting, the IESG is
going to think about what it is we need to do in terms of what we have
in production and next steps, so we'll get back to you real quick on
that. I don't have anything prepared. I wanted to put that out there.
Okay.
I think we have figured out the AV? Later? All right.
Tommy, come on up!
TOMMY PAULY: Thank you, Roman. Hi, everyone, I'm Tommy Pauly. I'm the
IAB Chair. I'll be chairing the report from the IAB, the Internet
Architecture Board, with you today.
The full report is available on Datatracker. We e-mailed that out before
the meeting began. I want to highlight a couple of things. So we're in a
season of doing a couple of workshops. Last month we had a joint
workshop with the W3C looking at age-based restrictions.
This is a very interesting and relevant topic. This is a report that is
forthcoming. Hopefully, we'll have something out to the community by the
end of the year, as the initial workshop report. But if you're
interested, you can also come to the IAB Open Meeting tomorrow where
we're going to have a good chunk of time to discuss how that workshop
went.
We are also hosting an upcoming workshop in December looking at IP
address and geolocation topics. This is something where we've already
received the contributions and sent out invitations, but watch this
space for seeing how that goes. And we're really looking forward to
having that discussion with the community.
We also have several appointments going on right now. So there is a
current call for nominations for the ISE, Independent Stream Editor,
position that are going on. The call for nominations ends on Friday; so
if this is something that you are interested in doing, this is the time
to speak up.
But also, very critically, starting probably next week, we'll be sending
out the call for feedback on nominees and what the community would like
to see from the ISOC. And so this is a call to please provide feedback
during that time. We want to hear from all of you.
We're also going to be sending out a call for nominations for an
appointed position to the ISOC Board of Trustees soon. That should be
coming out in the next couple of weeks. Please send in nominations for
that.
Earlier Roman mentioned appeals and the IAB being in the appeal chain.
We have received three appeals since the last meeting we've had. And we
have not sent out the responses to these yet, but those responses are
forth coming. So please keep an eye out for those.
And that is it from the IAB report. We'll be back up here with the full
IAB later for any questions.
And next up we have Dirk.
DIRK KUTSCHER: Thank you, Tommy. Hello. I'm Dirk Kutscher. I'm the Chair
of the Internet Research Task Force.
The IRTF has 16 groups at the moment, and 13 of which are meeting this
week. I'm happy to announce that we started a new group called SPACE RG.
SPACE RG is about the broader research questions about systems and
protocol aspects for circumstellar environments. And they have their
first meeting of many, so if you're interested please join that meeting.
The IRTF has two academic institutions for raising our research profile
for supporting high-quality research and for bringing new people to this
community, so the Applied Networking Research Workshop and the Applied
Networking Research Prize. And so we have ANRW, the workshop summer, and
we are starting the planning for the next round. I'm pleased to have
Thomas Schmidt and Suresh Krishnan chairing the workshop and the call
for papers out in December and looking forward to your submissions.
ANRP, the Applied Networking Research Prize -- we are awarding this to
noteworthy, relevant papers on applied networking at top-tier
conferences in the past year. And then we invite the winners to the IETF
to give talks. So this is kindly supported by the ISOC, Comcast, and
NBCUniversal.
This week we had two really excellent talks, one by Jacob Ginesin on a
formal analysis of SCTP and one by Saksham Agarwal for his work on host
congestion control. If you haven't seen that, please check out the
videos and the papers on the IRTF web page.
We're also honored to have Renata Teixeira from Netflix give a keynote
at IRTFOPEN earlier this week, called Low Orbit, High Impact What We've
Learned For Netflix Streaming Over Starlink. Highly interesting. I
recommend checking this out.
We also have the IRTF diversity travel grants that allow us to invite
early-career researchers from all over the world to participate in our
meetings. So this time we had four people joining from Asia, Africa,
South America. And so we are already running the process for IETF 125,
and the deadline for applications is at the end of next week. So if you
know anybody who would want to apply, please keep in that mind.
And then finally, our job is also to look for new important topics for
the IRTF, and we've been doing this in different ways. We have side
meetings this week, and one of the other measures we're doing is we are
going to top-tier conferences to engage. One of the things we're doing
is reporting a workshop at the upcoming CoNEXT conference on
Internet-working challenges for AI. If you attend that ,please make sure
you also attend the workshop.
That's it for me. Thank you.
Next up will be Benno.
ROMAN DANYLIW: A public service announcement. I noticed there's some
folks standing here. I know you want to stay for the whole plenary.
There's some prime seating over there that's aisle accessible that you
can relax in.
Come on up.
BENNO OVEREINDER: So good afternoon. I have the honor to give a status
update of the NomCom work. I'm the Chair of the current NomCom cycle,
‘25-‘26. We have ten voting members, and we have seven nonvoting
members. The nonvoting members are advisors to the voting members. So
typically, the liaisons, we advise about positions and the job
requirements for the positions. And as a group, we watch over the
process and advise the voting members.
The voting members, I'm very happy with the current group. They're very
enthusiastic, energetic. We started on Sunday morning.
We started with interviews on Sunday afternoon. Now, it's Wednesday,
three and a half days later. They're still energetic. We have another
day to run, so I told them several times in the room; but now, you know,
now everybody knows it's a great group of people.
What are we doing? The NomCom by numbers.
So this year, we are looking to fill 15 positions. So there are the six
AD positions to be filled. The IETF LLC Board and Trust, one position
both. The six areas in the IESG, and this year also, the IETF Chair.
So the positions we've filled -- I hope it's big enough to see it on the
screen. The number of unique nominees is 111, and the number that
accepted is 41. So just over one-third. So we're a little bit low on
accepted nominees for the interview.
We have a good set of nominees, but we had to extend the deadline, for
example, for ART. The deadline, we didn't have an accepted nominee. We
have four very good candidates. We're super happy.
But for next year, I would ask you in the room, or all the people that
are nominated for next year, and you're not sure if you're up to the job
yet, still accept it because it's a job application. The first time can
be exciting, but the next time you know how the procedure goes, what to
ask for.
And also, as chairs and co-chairs and previous chairs, we are more than
happy to mentor, to help you to get a future IETF leadership position.
So please keep that in the back of your minds for next IETF's NomCom
cycle. If you're not sure, accept the nomination and you will learn
what's needed and you can get feedback.
Good. We are now through over half of the interviews.
The NomCom work is a lot of work. It's interviews. That's about half of
the work. The other half is your feedback from the community. So you can
give feedback via the Datatracker. You can send e-mails to the NomCom
Chair or to the NomCom committee, the whole group, or talk to a NomCom
member.
So you recognize us with the orange dot. Maybe next time we should also
have orange jackets so you can recognize us in the hallways. I think
that was a suggestion this morning. We'll do that. Orange hat maybe? We
have a volunteer here to arrange that.
I heard we are short in budget for NomCom, so every donation is welcome.
But again, community feedback is really important. Yesterday was a soft
deadline.
I see a lot of people here. The deadline is tonight. So everybody is now
-- behind a laptop, please fill in, go to the website, fill in the
feedback. It's a soft deadline, so you can also get feedback later; but
we cannot guarantee we have time. It's a lot of work, it's a lot of
reading, a lot of evaluation. There are still interviews. And Friday
morning, we will start with the deliberations. We are positive to finish
deliberations by the end of the day on Friday. If not, we do the remote
work in the next two weeks after the IETF and send our slate in late
November, early December to the bodies. So this has to be confirmed and
you can expect both announcements early next year.
That's it! Any questions?
Please, any questions, send me an e-mail or to the NomCom list or find
us. And you're always welcome to visit us on the third floor, the NomCom
room. Thank you! Thank you.
[Applause]
ROMAN DANYLIW: While Glenn is coming up to give a report on the IPMC, I
see people flipping and loading up the NomCom feedback site. If you
would like to quote the stats of how much feedback we have, we can check
later in the program here. Whether we got the necessary feedback, we can
set the threshold, lock doors to make sure you get what you need. All
right.
GLENN DEEN: Hello! I'm Glenn Deen, and I'm here in my role as the
Chair of the IETF Trust. And I'm going to give away a secret.
I think I know why he steals away the plaques, because I've got my
plaque down there. I was looking at it. Roman, you have a rockstar
signature. Like, it is a beautiful signature that looks like a
Hollywood star has it.
ROMAN DANYLIW: My second-grade teacher would never be prouder of that,
my penmanship. I practice really hard. I wish I had it in second grade.
GLENN DEEN: It's beautiful. I wish I had a signature like that. Now, we
know why he steals them away. He doesn't want anyone else to have them.
Anyhow, I'm Glenn Deen, and I'm the Chair of the most boring, if we do
our job right, part of the IETF. So this is the report we give at every
plenary, what we've been up to since the last plenary.
In case you don't know, there are five trustees, and they serve as
trustees and directors of the Intellectual Property Management
Corporation, the IPMC. These are the five people that have given their
time. They're all volunteers. We're not paid and compensated in any way.
We do this, because we want to.
Since we last met, we have issued zero new licenses. We have had zero
licensing inquiries and zero trademark new licenses this year, zero
legal actions, a big important one.
You may say: Why are these zero? The majority of IETF licensing is
abandonment. It's done through the TLP on our website, the trust legal
provisions, and it's a passive license model that allows the trusts to
license back to the IETF and its activities, the work that we hold, the
rights we hold. So if things are going well, we don't have to write a
lot of active licenses. And so that's why these numbers are zero. That
means things are working as they should work and by design. So one of
the big things we've been working on for the last couple of years is
this restructuring.
We're changing the legal structure from a Virginia common trust, which
has been in place since 2005, into a corporation; and there's a lot of
reasons for this. We have a whole consultation we did in the past and
documented why we're doing this, but we're coming to the end of the
road, and we're almost done. We can see at the end of the day, the
achievements. A couple of things, Roman mentioned we have an update to
RFC 5378. We're saying don't call it the Trust anymore. It's up there,
and it's being discussed on the -- I think the working group, the IPR
working group.
We did not catch that typo.
And we are also updating the companion document to that. RFC 5378 is the
inbound rights, and the TLP is the outbound rights. We're going to do
them both and, of course, there will be some boilerplate updates. So
what you're going to see as participants is that the copyright statement
at the top of Internet drafts and published RFCs is going to say no
longer the Trust. It's going to say Intellectual Property Management
Corporation.
Also, part of this exercise requires we hold some assets for the IANA.
This was done when the IANA transition was done a few years ago. In
practical terms, we hold three trademarks, and a series of domain names
that are part of the IANA architecture and provisioning.
To support this, we have been requested by the CCG, which was the group
that was created, made up of IETF representatives, names and numbers
representatives that advise the Trust on handling the assets. And they
ask for some recognition directly in the bylaws, so we've got a 60-day
period. We're accepting reviews. It will close on December 5th. You saw
a few more weeks to get your comments in about the proposed bylaw
amendments.
I want to call out -- I know that we just had the NomCom up here, but I
want to nudge you again for a couple of reasons. The Trust is pretty
small compared to the number of people that apply to the IAB for roles.
We had four people this time be nominated and accept the Trust. We had
five nominated and four accepted. That's for the positions being filled,
and comments are open right now. There will be another position that's
appointed by the IESG. That's coming up for renewal later this year. And
Roman and team will take care of that notice.
They'll do that, but I just want to call out, if you're interested in
being on the Trust, look for that notice, get your name in there, and
come join.
I'm stepping down as the Trust Chair. I've been on the Trust for many
years, and so this is the opportunity to fix all the mistakes I made! So
if you want to come talk to us, we are meeting. We always have office
hours here. So this IETF 124, we're up Thursday. That's tomorrow. We're
going to be in the McGill Room, down the hall, from 10:45 to 11:15. I
always say come visit us. We're lonely. We do intellectual property
rights.
That's not as cool as some of the engineering talk going on. Please
visit us. We're friendly. We don't have extra cookies. If you bring
some, we might eat them.
So anyhow, thank you.
[Applause]
ROMAN DANYLIW: All right. Jay, come on up and Mirjam for the IETF
Administration LLC. Public service announcement, there is prime aisle
seating if anyone wants to sit down. I saw some early exits, good for
you.
Benno, are you tracking the numbers? Please keep the feedback coming for
the NomCom. Multitask here.
JAY DALEY: Well, hello and from the LLC, welcome to Montreal. As Roman
has noted, we have very high participation both here and online. So this
is looking like a very good meeting so far.
So first of all, I want to thank our meeting host. We've already had
Glenn present, but this is a joint sponsorship by Comcast and
NBCUniversal. They're a long-time host and supporter of the IETF. They
sponsor other things, as well as the meetings. They're very easy to work
with. They have very clear views about what they want to do. They're
very simple to get on with. They're a great host. Thank you very much to
Comcast and NBCUniversal.
[Applause]
Also, as Glenn very rarely drinks, he's the cheapest one that we ever
take out for dinner, so it's fantastic. Thank you.
So also thank you to our gold sponsors on diversity and inclusion. We
have Akamai and Huawei and on running code, we have Ericsson. Thank you
very much.
[Applause]
And then down to our bronze sponsors -- which means we don't have any
silver sponsors. We do have a gap and an upsell opportunity. So anybody
interested, please come speak to me about that. So by diversity and
inclusion, we have Comcast and ICANN.
Sustainability, we have NTT who only joined recently. Running code,
ICANN and CNNIC. Open Internet, DENIC and Nominet. Thank you.
And thank you also to our equipment services and connectivity sponsors.
Those of you who've heard me give this before know that we get an
enormous amount of free services, free help, and other things from these
people.
Many of these people have people here as well, at the meetings. So if we
have problems with it, we have engineers on-site to call upon. We're
able to do some extraordinary things as a result of this, so thank you
very much to all of these companies.
[Applause]
Right. And we, of course, do have a stall where you can buy things. We
are always -- I always put this out, looking for new product ideas.
Roman gave me at least 15 yesterday. So expect hoodies, expect running
things, more running things, running things, and possibly some running
things as well to be in the store at some point. And stickers, that's
right.
We are also looking at -- well, we're going to continue to provide
things as you want for the store. Please do let us know. So there are a
number of volunteers that support the meeting.
Within the Codesprint this weekend we had on Saturday, we had this group
of people. Within the NOC, we have these people. And within the NOC, of
course these people are supported very strongly, some of them by their
employers. So thank you very much to these people for volunteering.
[Applause]
And then thank you to the team, Secretariat, Meetecho, and the NOC.
Thank you again very much for the work that you do.
[Applause]
And now some slides with faces. This is the IETF LLC staff. Thank you
all so much for your work.
[Applause]
We haven't put names on this slide. Apologies for that. This is the RFC.
We will be adding slides.
We haven't got together to do something slightly different. But we do
have, I think, almost half of the RFC here. We have a desk out in
reception. Please come and meet them. Please come and talk to them.
See how they're getting on. Thank you very much to them.
[Applause]
And this is the Secretariat, as well. A little bit more detailed. You've
seen the people before, but to help you put a face to a name. And you'll
see them wandering around with their uniforms, as well so relatively
easy to find. Thank you very much to the Secretariat!
[Applause]
And then thank you to our global hosts. These are the people who make
multiyear commitments to support the IETF. In every case here just
about, we have an individual or a group of individuals in that company
who go to battle within their organization to say yes. We need to
basically sponsor the IETF, put a lot of money into the IETF. We don't
get a sales booth. We don't get any marketing videos as a result of
this. All we get is a bunch of reasonably well-fed engineers and that's
it. Thank you very much to these people.
[Applause]
So IETF 125, Shenzhen, registration is open. We will be showing the
video. I'm not sure it's ready. For those of you that don't know,
Shenzhen is a city in mainland China. It's very close to Hong Kong. The
train station is underneath the venue so it makes life easy for us. And
we look forward to seeing many of you there.
Onto future locations and venues, so we have Shenzhen ready. We have the
host of CNNIC hosting that. We have IETF 126 in Vienna. We're still
looking for a meeting host, but we have one company interested. IETF
127, San Francisco coming up. We're still awaiting the host, but we're
having some very good conversations going on there.
The others going forward here, we're going to make an effort soon to put
out a little bit more information about that.
We've -- we've always been concerned about giving too much information
away about what we're going, because it acts of the commercial
negotiations. We've had that happen several times. So what we're going
to aim to do is give you details of at least the countries we're looking
in so that you have some idea about those types of things and try to
give more information about that as we go on.
So that should be coming at some point soon, as well as negotiating
these meetings here. We're also into IETF 122 and 123. So we've got a
number of them that are either quite close or not far off being ready.
So there should be some big changes developing in this quite soon.
Over to Mirjam.
MIRJAM KÜHNE: Thank you. I'm Mirjam Kuhne, the Chair of the LLC Board,
and I have a few slides. Thank you.
Here are all the board members.
Most of us are here. You'll see us later on stage. Only George is online
but he's also participating. They can all introduce themselves later in
person.
We always show this, because we do have a monthly board meeting; and
they are open to observers, the public part of the meeting. We also have
board-only sessions, but these board meetings are open to observers. You
can join us. The agendas are published on the website, and I'll send out
the e-mails to the announcement list.
Here is the slide on our financial status at this point in time. I'm not
going to go into details there. You can find all this online also,
including the August financial statements are published and approved on
the website. There's even some more information here on the slide.
I'm also not going to go through this in detail, because it's detailed
financial information; but this gives some additional explanations to
some of the items on the slide before you. So you can look at that in
your spare time and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact us. And our treasurer is also here, and our financial officer;
so they can all give you more information in the hallways if you're
interested.
This is the list that we usually show of what we are currently working
on. Fundraising is usually always on top because they're recurring items
for us on the board, but, of course, also in the LLC and Secretariat.
We're working together. We've reviewed our strategy to be more flexible
and allow sponsors to contribute to the bucket, if they're the most
comfortable with the endowment or operations or meetings like Jay has
just shown. The hosts, for instance.
We've also reviewed our investment strategy and streamlined that a
little bit, so that is ongoing work.
We've also looked at our communications. So you know we published the
minutes and agenda decisions online. We're trying to be a bit more
formal about it, what's the solutions and decisions you make, how we
make decisions. We looked at possibly also publishing kind of statements
similar to what the IAB statements are, not formal statements, but
something that you could maybe refer to, if necessary, if the LLC comes
out with an official statement. It's probably not going to happen very
often but something we are considering.
There's currently a consultation out on future meeting fees that Jay has
sent out on the list. I believe the deadline is mid-November -- the 14th
of November, I think. You can still give us feedback on the proposed
numbers in that email.
And we've also submitted some comments for the changes that the Trust
has published on their changed bylaws. And there was also a meeting --
some of us have participated in the meeting with the Trust earlier this
week to go through those comments. And yeah, the Secretariat's contract
is coming up, so we are looking into that.
That's currently on our plate. And it's pretty much all I have to share
with you. Of course, we are there and can answer any questions later.
And on the agenda, just so you know how to find us, there's an email
list. You can find us as a board and also our executive director. And
there are some URLs with various information, like financial statements
and minutes and so forth and our policies.
So yeah, that's all from me. Thank you.
(Applause)
JAY DALEY: Right now, we have a short video about IETF 125 Shenzhen to
show you.
(Video)
(Alarm clock)
(Horns beeping)
Welcome to Shenzhen.
(Music)
(Applause)
Kind of the pilot to try new things and to implement new plan, new
ideas. Shenzhen is really focusing on the level playing field.
(Music crescendo)
Hello. How are you?
(Music)
JAY DALEY: All right, thank you.
(Applause)
ROMAN DANYLIW: So with the profoundness of apologies, I invite back to
the stage my partner in so many things, Sally Wentworth, ISOC CEO. And
the Internet Society is a great partner to the IETF. Again, profound
apologies for the technical difficulties we had in presenting the Postel
Award. Can we please queue up the video?
DAVID CLARK: I am absolutely delighted to have received this award,
and I'm so sorry I cannot be there in-person to talk to people.
This week we are on a long-planned vacation. I try to remember the
value of vacations. So you see me where I seem to spend most of my
time these days, in front of a computer doing a Zoom call.
I thought of putting in a fake background like this. This is the
river behind my house, but I just decided to stick with my actual
home.
I'm not sure what aspects of my work count as service, but I guess
I've accumulated some points for service over the 50 years I've been
working on the Internet. It's mildly disconcerting to realize it's,
indeed, since about 50 years since I joined the Internet Working
Group. And we started trying to reduce the vision that Bob and Vint
had to running code and writing specifications. And I've done all
sorts of things related to the Internet since then.
I want to take this moment to talk about someone else. This is the
Jon Postel Service Award, and I realize I'm in a shrinking group of
people that actually worked closely with Jon. This award is named
for Jon for a very good reason. He epitomized what I considered to
be service. He was the first RFC Editor, the number czar for many
years. Here's a slide from a 2009 IETF presentation that has a
wonderful picture of Jon from 1995.
I'm told that in some Native American cultures, when there was a
tribal conclave to discuss some important matter, one question a
person might ask was: Who speaks for the Wolf? Who speaks for that
which has no voice?
Jon always spoke for the Internet, not some bright, shiny idea he
just had. He was always thoughtful, considered, considerate. When
there was some decision being deliberated, Jon would lean back and
say, “Well.” He had a particular way of saying that. And then after
a pause, say something that was thoughtful, clarifying. He had no
interest in starting a company or getting rich. Of course, we
weren't doing startups back then, but his heart was in the success
of the Internet.
I hope that I too have spoken for the Internet when I have had the
opportunity. And I'm going to keep doing that for as long as I can.
I'm still working at MIT. There are too many things broken to sit
back and do nothing but float on the river. But at the risk of
getting a little maudlin, that band of creative, risk-taking people
who got started in the mid ‘70s have now aged by 50 years. Jon died
in 1998. Bob Braden, who served as well as an RFC Editor, has also
died. These were my friends. And we've lost others. And we need to
remember them and speak for them as well as speaking for the
Internet.
There are many stories we should not forget. I am so sorry I am not
there.
(Applause)
SALLY WENTWORTH: So once again, thank you for including me today. And
it's a real honor to pay tribute to people like David Clark who's done
so much to build and contribute to the Internet that we all benefit from
and the Internet that we're still trying to build for the future.
We will have a remote ceremony where David will be available to
participate, and we will have a celebration of him in that session. I
think it's on November 20th. So once again, thank you and
congratulations to David.
(Applause)
ROMAN DANYLIW: Congratulations to David. We pivot now to the next
portion of our agenda. It's the first of the Open Mic sessions. It's the
IAB, and Tommy is going to lead us through that.
TOMMY PAULY: Please. All right. Hello, everyone. This is the IAB, the
Internet Architecture Board. And first, we will quickly go through and
introduce everyone. Let's start at this side.
DIRK KUTSCHER: Dirk Kutscher, IRTF Chair.
CULLEN JENNINGS: Cullen Jennings.
DHRUV DHODY: Dhruv Dhody
SURESH KRISHNAN: Suresh Krishnan.
WARREN KUMARI: Warren Kumari.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Roman Danyliw, IETF.
MIRJA KÜHLEWIND: Mirja Küehlewind.
MARK NOTTINGHAM: Mark Nottingham.
TOMMY PAULY: Tommy Pauly, IAB Chair.
JANA IYENGAR: Jana Iyengar.
JASON LIVINGOOD: Jason Livingood.
TOMMY PAULY: All right. At this point, we are open for any questions.
We're also open for questions tomorrow at the IAB Open. Bob is first.
BOB MOSKOWITZ: Bob Moskowitz. As I said on the list earlier, at the end
of this week, we have completed 40 years. This completes, by my math, 40
years of the IETF. There are a few people who were here at the onset,
and it's amazing they are still with us here active.
And so I think we should give recognition to those who got this started
and what we've accomplished in the last 40 years. Thank you.
(Applause)
SURESH KRISHNAN: I think I see Bob here who have been around the whole
time.
DAVID LAMPARTER: While we're giving acknowledgment, two weeks ago was
RIPE 91 in Bucharest, and I was positively surprised to see Mirja there,
to see Suresh there, to see Éric Vyncke there. And they actually went
and talked to the operator community and were visible. And that is
incredibly important.
It was -- well, it was quite well received by the people I've talked to
there in the operator community.
As far as I know, this came at personal cost to Mirja and Suresh. So I'm
not sure what we can do to support this. But if we can find some way to
do more of that, that would be really great. And thank you to Mirja,
thank you to Suresh, and thank you to Éric Vyncke. And yeah.
SURESH KRISHNAN: Thank you very much, David. We do really like the
outreach stuff. And thank you and for Greg Wood as well. And we do
really love talking to the communities, and we are trying to do this at
least in a periodic manner, if not every meeting, but at least try to
make this an ongoing thing. And we are tracking it and really appreciate
your feedback. Thank you.
(Applause)
TOMMY PAULY: I guess one brief point on that, as we were talking about
the NomCom earlier, and one of the important things from the NomCom is
what is the composition of the IAB ongoing?
So as you pointed out, a lot of being able to participate in some of
these outreach events is based on people's existing connection to those
communities or their own ability to get funding for that. So that's
something to think about that if this is something you would like to
help with outreach, come engage with the IAB or potentially stand for
it. Eliot.
ELIOT LEAR: Thank you, Tommy. As you mentioned in your IAB Report, the
Independent Submissions Editor position is up. I just wanted to add one
comment, which is if anybody is interested in how the position works,
what the job is, if you would like to shadow me for a little bit, if you
have any questions whatsoever, I'm around all day tomorrow. Feel free to
reach out to me by email. it's lear@lear.ch. Happy to answer any
questions that you have if you're at all interested in the role. Thank
you.
TOMMY PAULY: Thank you, Eliot. And thank you for your work in the role,
and you're also up for nomination, so this is a great time also to give
feedback. So thank you so much for all you've done there.
(Applause)
ELIOT LEAR: Thank you. And please do provide feedback, good, bad, or
otherwise.
TOMMY PAULY: All feedback is useful feedback. All right.
Rodney? Take that how you will.
RODNEY TAYLOR: Good evening. I'm Rodney Taylor, head of the Caribbean
Telecommunications Union and a new participant here, first time at the
IETF. And I'm really appreciative to ISOC for facilitating this
participation of members from the Caribbean. We have colleagues here
from Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, the Eastern Caribbean Telecom
Authority.
I noticed there are opportunities to host, and we definitely welcome you
in the Caribbean any time. We have wonderful beaches, of course.
(Applause)
RODNEY TAYLOR: More than welcome. In the past life, I was also the Chair
of the Barbados chapter of the Internet Society and hosted Barbuda's
first Internet Governance Forum very successfully.
In fact, that first meeting we honored a gentleman by the name of Alan
Emtage who is in the Internet Hall of Fame. We're very proud of that
fact because he's from Barbados, a little tiny speck on the globe. You
have to zoom way in to find it in the Caribbean. So we're very proud of
the fact that Alan Emtage developed the first search engine.
We also celebrated 21 years of the Internet Governance Forum -- the
Caribbean Internet Governance Forum this year in Cuba. It's actually the
longest-standing Internet governance forum globally, and it's actually
before the UN IGF.
And so I wanted to express my appreciation to ISOC, the CEO, and all of
the leaders who came and spoke with us today. It's definitely broadened
my horizons, and I want to see more Caribbean participation within these
spaces, our youth involvement, and so on.
I'm more involved in the ITU. I'm actually co-facilitator of a working
group within ITU -- there's an international advisory body on cable
protection, cable resilience, marine cable resilience. And of course,
95% of global traffic moves still on submarine cables, and it's
important to protect them. And we are looking at geographic diversity in
small states and in fostering connectivity. So for small islands, it is
the economics of connecting submarine cables, which are very expensive
and it's not always there. And, therefore, we have to look at
private-public partnerships and so on.
But my involvement here has definitely broadened my horizons. Within the
Caribbean, there's been a lot of discussions on fair-share issue. And I
raised it within our discussions and was actually very pleased with the
response I got. And I think there's more opportunity for collaboration
with ISOC and the IETF, the Caribbean policymakers.
So let me express my appreciation to Olaf and all the others who engaged
with us today. And it's definitely been very eye-opening for me today.
Thank you very much.
TOMMY PAULY: Thank you.
(Applause)
TOMMY PAULY: I want to highlight that the policymaker program that ISOC
helps run and co-locates with the IETF meeting is a great thing. And I
think on behalf of the IAB and all the IETF, we also really appreciate
having that cross-communication and your ideas and questions because
they make our perspective richer as well. So much appreciated.
All right, anything else? Going once, going twice, okay. I think up next
is the IESG.
ROMAN DANYLIW: All right. All right. I invite the IESG to continue to
come on up.
Benno, how are we doing with the NomCom feedback? Is it getting better?
We getting more feedback?
BENNO OVEREINDER: Indeed, it does work. And especially feedback on the
IETF Chair is --
ROMAB DANYLIW: Wonderful.
BENNO OVEREINDER: -- going up. I don't know why.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Feedback is a gift.
Okay. We are going to get started. Let's start with introductions. Erik,
can you get us started.
ERIK KLINE: Internet Area Director.
GUNTER VAN DE VELDE: Gunter van de Velde, Routing.
PAUL WOUTERS: Paul Wouters, Security.
ANDY NEWTON: Andy Newton, ART.
DEB COOLEY: Deb Cooley, Security.
MOHAMED BOUCADAIR: Mohamed Boucadair, OPS AD.
MAHESH JETHANANDANI: Mahesh Jethanandani, OPS AD.
KETAN TALAULIKAR: Ketan Talaulikar, Routing AD.
ORIE STEELE: Orie Steele, ART.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Roman Danyliw, IETF Chair.
GORRY FAIRHURST: Gorry Fairhurst, WIT AD.
MIKE BISHOP: Mike Bishop, WIT AD.
ÉRIC VYNCKE: We started INT AD and with an Erik, so we finish with
another INT and another Éric. Éric Vyncke.
ROMAN DANYLIW: The IESG from Erik to Éric. Okay.
The mic line is open. We have individuals queuing up.
Jordi, you are first up, please.
JORDI MARTINEZ: Yes, Jordi. Well, I am addressing this today at IESG
because I believe it belongs to the IESG. But otherwise, the rest of the
bodies are here, and they may be able to answer.
In 2000, in March 2000, there was a legal agreement between ICANN and
the IETF. And in that agreement, it's clear that they should respect our
processes to assign addresses for specific proposals, among other
things.
However, a couple of weeks ago, more or less, ICANN started a public
consultation. And then we also discovered that sometime ago, they
already assign it a special IPv4 address, and now they are asking for
IPv6 address.
Obviously, this is against a legal agreement. And I want to know what is
doing the IESG about that? Because I have not seen any comment on that.
We had some discussion in 6MAN, but I think we should have higher level
response much quickly than having nothing at the moment.
ÉRIC VYNCKE: So if you don't mind, there is a meeting -- there was a
meeting between the IESG and IANA on Monday. This topic went there, of
course. And since, we believe there's no misbehavior or any malice from
ICANN, simply lack of knowledge about our own processes.
And the plan is after this week -- the IESG, we are quite busy this week
-- is basically to find somebody, maybe you, because you are involved
there and you volunteer, right? You said yes. So you are volunteering.
Basically, writing a draft, requesting and assigning now to addressee
one IPv4 and IPv6 for this purpose, and not purposes of ICANN,
provisional blocking of domain for testing and so on, because we can use
those services, not only for the ccTLD, but even for example.org.
So it will be much more generic, and then we can go to ICANN say, Please
use these addresses. That's the plan. What do you think?
JORDI MARTINEZ: I didn't say I am sure. I mentioned in some mailing
list, I am sure they did not both sides, that's to be clear. But I think
that at least they should stop the public consultation, correct the
information, because on the web page, even the IPv6 address that was
there was wrongly written. And make a public, let's say, we should not
have done this, okay. I think it's important that they say, We did that
by mistake, and we are bound to the IETF process for these kinds of
things.
But yes, the plan you mentioned, I think it's what I was suspecting.
Thank you.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Thanks for raising that issue. Erik is going to totally
help us with that action item, and we're going to work with our
colleagues in the IAB and the ICANN liaison to figure out what is needed
as the next course of action. Great. Stephen.
STEPHEN FARRELL: So you have received some appeals. I'm not here to
quibble with the outcome because I think mostly the outcomes were good.
I'm here to ask -- and I'm happy to give my opinion after you guys --
what do you think you got wrong in processing those appeals?
(Laugher)
ROMAN DANYLIW: Well --
(Laugher)
ROMAN DANYLIW: Stephen, why don't you tell us what you think we did
wrong.
STEPHEN FARRELL: It's not just a joke question.
ROMAN DANYLIW: I don't mean it as a joke. I mean, please, you got
feedback for us about how we're processing. Like I said in the pitch,
we've gotten a lot of appeals. There's a lot of things about how some of
the appellants were participating in the process. We have engaged on
that. We have engaged on providing process clarity where we thought
there was ambiguity, both for the appellant and for the broader
communities that were impacted. And we have engaged on the substance of
those appeals.
I also understand we did multiple rounds on kind of certain topics.
There really is a fine line we're trying to kind of -- the needle we're
trying to thread here. The law, making sure we have process adherence,
providing the necessary protections for the standard process, and making
sure we're working the substance of the appeals, and the path to the
appeals is always open. And there's a fine line to thread on all those
dimensions.
So I think we mostly got it right. I'm sure that we didn't get it
completely right. I welcome the feedback to sharpen our approach.
STEPHEN FARRELL: Okay. Do any other IESG members have an answer? Mike,
please.
\MIKE BISHOP: In terms of what we got wrong, I think all of our recent
field responses were then appealed to the IAB. So we're waiting for the
IAB to tell us that.
(Laughter)
MIKE BISHOP: The IAB will tell us what we got wrong or not, and we'll go
from there.
One thing I think that this process has uncovered for us though is some
places where we currently operate on norms and tradition as opposed to
having things filled out as explicitly as they might be in the RFCs that
define our process.
And so I think there are some steps that we probably should consider in
terms of formalizing or stepping up the way things are structured. And
we note that the PROCON working group already exists. That might require
a recharter for it to do more things or a different venue, but I think
there is some work to be done here.
STEPHEN FARRELL: I would like to give my opinion. I think one of the
things you got wrong is you didn't focus on the substance up front. You
seemed, from my perspective, to focus on the wrapping and the content
and the presentation and the ice boxing and causing more and more
appeals, which I think seemed, from my perspective, counterproductive.
And it's interesting that your reaction is to try to formalize it more,
opposed to one of our earlier traditions is to try to understand the
substance, the meat, and try and deal with that. And if we have to deal
with formalism, sure; but the first thing I should be trying to figure
out, the substance of what's going on. So that's my feedback.
PAUL WOUTERS: So I can reply a little bit to that since I was one of the
main targets here.
The problems seem to have been there was no way to cause less disruption
on the list because the more words I was using in the appeal for the
non-essential parts of what you said, the more voluminous messages came
to the list with even more distractions that I was supposed to answer.
So at some point, you really have to just, like, put the emergency brake
on and go now we have to be a little more formal. Let's get things going
so we can sort of not deal with all the sidetracks and actually get to
the core business. Maybe I should have done -- I had done the analysis
of the core question that was not actually in the appeal. Like, did the
working group chairs make the right decision on the consensus call or
not? I should have probably sent it out a little bit sooner, but it's
kind of weird to answer an appeal when you're also, meanwhile, asking
that person to fix the appeal to send to you. So it was a bit of a Catch
22 situation here.
STEPHEN FARRELL: I acknowledge it's a very difficult set of appeals and
a relatively difficult person. So I acknowledge it wasn't easy, but
nonetheless, that's my feedback. And I hope you can really reflect on
that. And did your reaction to the awkward, irritating, annoying, mostly
bogus appeal actually make it worse?
DEB COOLEY: Can I ask you a clarifying question? You say appeals,
plural?
STEPHEN FARRELL: Yeah.
DEB COOLEY: Do you mean all of the appeals?
STEPHEN FARRELL: I have literally lost track of all the nonsense.
(Laughter)
ROMAN DANYLIW: Yeah, so we've worked eight appeals in the last, I don't
know, six, seven months.
STEPHEN FARRELL: I didn't mean every single appeal. No, I meant the
sequence of appeals that you know I'm talking about.
DEB COOLEY: The latest ones?
STEPHEN FARRELL: The whole shebang.
DEB COOLEY: Well, we have to remember them all.
STEPHEN FARRELL: I'm glad if you do reflect on it, and I hope you don't
go down the route to say we need more formalism, because I don't think
that's the right approach.
ROMAN DANYLIW: I think as Mike mentioned, one of the places where we
would benefit tremendously from is community consensus feedback, which
is one of the reasons why 5378 is open. 5378 was opened before to
address exactly the situation Glenn was talking about, but there's
clearly other issues to talk about. So please bring that discussion to
make sure the community consensus documents are where they need to be.
That's the best guidance we can have. Thank you for that.
PAUL WOUTERS: One more point. Part of when the appeal issues were
happening, both in content and process, it seemed to be that the people
that were sort of clearly in the rough of rough consensus used this
process to relitigate the same issue again. And it was actually kind of
obvious that they were already in the rough of rough consensus. And
sure, I can go firmly sort of point it out and list both in numbers and
both in topic space and answer and address it; but it really felt to me
that a few people were just trying to go for a second and third chance
for the exact same thing without actually adding new information to the
process.
MIKE BISHOP: In terms of the specific work that I was suggesting, I
think the most concrete one, if you look at the IESG charter, it is
informational. It says that it was written as input with the expectation
that the community would write a charter for what they want the IESG to
do. And the community never did. That never happened.
So we have an informational charter that we've been acting on since
then. But, yes, I really think there should be a chart that tells us
what our job is as opposed to the informational document that describes
what we have been doing. So please, do our job description.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Making sure this time.
Pete, you're up next.
PETE RESNICK: Hi, it's Pete Resnick. First to quickly agree with one of
Stephen's comments, which is probably getting more formal with appeals
like the last few you've dealt with, is not the best idea. Coming up
with a way to strip out the persons going on and on and finding some
core issues and just saying yes or no is the better approach. That's not
what I got up here for.
First, I want to thank Erik for taking the bullets during the Working
Group Chair session. I owe him a beer and the rest of you do too for not
being up in the front. And thank you to Roman for talking about the
tools change.
One thing that I want you all to take away is, yes, there is a problem
with not talking out the tools change with us beforehand. And I've
talked to a couple of you about I understand how these things, when
you're sitting on the IESG and there's 15,000 things, and oh, oh, we can
just make this tool's change, and it would make everybody's life easier.
That seems easy, and then you affect a bunch of stuff. That's not a
great thing. And I appreciate that you have taken that in.
The other bit, though, that I think you really need to take seriously is
that tools change sort of led to an implied process change. It was not
intended, I don't think, but you've got to be very careful about making
changes to the tools or making changes even to the way you talk to
working groups about different activities and implying that there is a
formal piece of process being introduced when the IETF has to come to
consensus on process changes. You don't get to make those choices.
In this case, it sounded like a documented option was suddenly becoming
a real part of the IESG way of looking at documents; and it's not in our
processes. And you can have a working group say the chair assigns a
working group editor, and that is now our document with a blank page,
and no adoption step goes on. And there's a couple of different ways
that no real adoption can happen.
And if you want to introduce to the community the idea that maybe we
should formalize that, great. Have that discussion. I don't think it
would be a great idea. I know others who think it would be a wonderful
idea. But don't change tools or don't say things that will imply that to
the community.
ROMAN DANYLIW: You're exactly right, Pete. As we said, we apologize. And
we didn't mean to suggest there was a process change with this tooling.
And we're going to look into what kind of transpired and figure out
process-wise maybe a little more change, how we put our tickets in, and
how they're actioned in the tools chain. Thanks for the feedback.
Okay, James. James, you're up next.
JAMES OLORUNDARE: All right, thank you very much. My name is James
Olorundare. I'm from Nigeria, okay. And I'm the President of Internet
Society, Nigerian Chapter.
This is my first time attending IETF. And I will say that I think I'm
really excited, you know, because I studied engineering, and this is the
kind of thing I really, really want to be involved in. Okay.
Yeah, so I observed a couple of things which I feel probably maybe you
may be able to answer. However, if that is not within your purview,
maybe you may refer to appropriate person to see.
So number one has to do with the newcomers, you know, session. Like I
said, I've been involved in a lot of standardization, you know,
processes, ITU, ISO, and so on and so forth. And I know that, yeah, you
can have a newcomer session, right. And I think it should have been an
isolated session in such a way as not to clash with another program, so
that at least there will be concentration. I mean, all the newcomers
will be able to attend without having a divided attention as in, oh,
okay, I want to attend this and at the same time, I want to attend that
other program. That actually happened to me, okay. So I missed part of
the, you know, the newcomer session. And I didn't feel too good about
that. So maybe find a solution could be that maybe newcomer session
should be organized in such a way not to clash with any other program.
That is on one hand.
On the other hand, I was looking at history of RFC, and I got to know
that, okay, it started around 1969. And the name RFC was adopted, I may
be wrong, but that is what I read, was adopted because the -- there was
a need to encourage people to always comment or make suggestions on a
particular standard. But I know that RFC actually stand for request for
comment. So for me, it doesn't sit well, okay, this is actually a final
document that has been approved as a standard.
So I'm like, okay, there should be a name that is more like anybody
looking at it will know, okay, this is actually a standard. Maybe --
sorry, Internet Engineering Standard or something like that, IES.
And for the ones that are still in draft, I think RFC can be maintained.
So I'm just thinking that at least there would be a clear-cut definition
of what is the standard and what is not a standard. But I know RFC has
been adopted, but I'm just saying I think we can do something about it.
Thank you very much.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Great. Thanks for the feedback. So I heard two kinds of
things that I want to respond to. So one about the no clash to the
newcomers’ events, yeah, thank you. We'll take that under advisement.
I think the smartest thing you can do, I think you're going to get a
post-meeting survey and please provide -- one of the data -- one of the
bits of information we collect is what conflicted against what and that
provides us better insight into future scheduling. It's going to get
called in a minute here, but please provide that the post-survey, and
we'll try to adjudicate that on the next schedule.
On the branding issue of whether we need to rename the RFC or create a
new series, I honestly don't have a great answer on how to engage on
that particular kind of topic. Minting a new series is not something
we've ever done before. We've always published in the RFC series. We've
created different streams.
One thing I might suggest is if the text in RFC 2026, which explains the
different types of RFCs, may really clarify the difference, purposes
they each have, and how some of the metadata may make it clearer to the
outside observer about the disposition of it.
The other piece of feedback I might have is there's definitely perhaps
outside confusion on the brand itself, and we are literally launching a
new website of the RFC Editor where we're trying to eliminate some of
that confusion, better convey what's baked, what's not, what's
experimental, what's not, and actively collecting feedback. I think you
can go to the RFC Editor desk all week to talk with them and their
future plans. That might be another good place to provide that feedback
because any feedback you have can probably be merged in the next couple
months into what the new launch is. Thank you for those observations;
it's very helpful.
JAMES OLORUNDARE: Thank you.
And just one observation, as far as we are aware, we do not schedule
anything against the new participation program items on Sunday. So I
would be interested to figure out what was.
JAMES OLORUNDARE: I think the IEPG.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Yeah, there's a whole number of events. This is why --
JAMES OLORUNDARE: I think the hackathon was on that very day.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Yeah, I mean, we have a scheduling constraint, obviously.
We have hundreds of sessions to schedule. So getting a slot against
which nothing is scheduled is -- yes, that is --
DEB COOLEY: Sometimes those things are recorded. So IEPG might be
recorded. Is it?
ROMAN DANYLIW: Yes.
DEB COOLEY: You should be able to watch the recording afterwards at
least. And the slides are online, right.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Okay. Up next in the mic, Arnaud, please.
ARNAUD TADDEI: Hi, Arnaud Taddei. So I'm going to speak as myself. I
feel guilty for not having taken the mic at the last IETF Plenary. And
the topic was about Shenzhen.
I was shell shocked by what I heard that day. I was very happy to see
the video. I was happy to see that people clapped for that.
Here is the problem. The problem is that we are in a world that is
changing dramatically fast, and shit is going to happen faster than we
think. When I heard the disgraceful comments about people not willing to
come to China for various reasons and various considerations and so on,
some are perfectly legitimate, but the ideology behind it was really
bad.
Chinese colleagues work with us since years, if not decades. They are
engineers like us. They come here and they contribute. Their companies
have to fight sometimes to get budget, to organize themselves. Internal
Chinese competition with their government don't always agree, and it's
hard for them. And they come and they contribute and make this place a
good place.
So I don't understand why certainly we have to let ideology drive us.
That's a Pandora's box that is extremely dangerous. And we don't know
what's going to happen if we let this continue to happen. We will have
more and more problems.
Let me take the counterpoint of that. The past 33 years, I go in the
U.S. I love this country. But the first time in my life when I go to the
U.S., I fear of what's going to happen. I have to ask myself the
question. It's very interesting to see the agenda. When is San Francisco
IETF in '27? Think about the agenda when this is going to happen. What
will happen at that time? Should we accept to go to San Francisco?
So where is this ending? Should I contest everything that we are dealing
with to go to country X or country Y because we don't like this or we
don't like that? We are a technical body. We should stay as a technical
body.
So, Chair, I think we should make sure that this Pandora's box closes.
We should have a dialogue with people who have a problem. I can tell you
have to do it every single day, and it's not a problem for us. So why is
it a problem here?
So my point is that we should be careful about what's happening here.
And I welcome to China fully. I support you. You should keep doing what
you have to do. The Chinese colleagues, they are putting money in us.
They are investing. They are sponsoring us. So we should be really
careful what we are doing here. Over.
(Applause)
ROMAN DANYLIW: Thanks for your words.
SEAN TURNER: Hey, +1 to that. Sean Turner. I guess I'm working group
chair that seems to get appealed a lot for whatever grand reason.
I do want to get up here and thank the IESG for starting MODPOD. I think
it's something that we definitely need. I want to thank them for picking
some excellent chairs. Lisa Dusseault and John Peterson, I think,
knocked it out of the park. I think the document editors have been doing
a really great job. And basically, I think it's been a really great
thing, and I'm really happy that we did it so we can have good
procedures for how to moderate the list. So thanks.
(Applause)
ROMAN DANYLIW: Thanks for the feedback, Sean. And since MODPOD was
invoked -- and I mentioned it earlier process-wise, that document is
under AD review. When the working group adjudicates the feedback I
provided them, it's going to IETF Last Call. And this is going to be an
opportunity for the broader community that may not have participated. If
the working group itself can provide feedback on that document, great.
Thanks.
Harald.
HARALD ALVESTRAND: Harald Alvestrand. Just warning about procedures.
When you're defining procedures because of difficult conditions, you're
always fighting the last war. And it's very easy to set the procedures
in such a way that they can be used against you.
So the informality of the IESG's processes is sometimes very deliberate
because leave us the maneuvering room to fight the next war. So in
setting up procedures, be careful not to box yourself in.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Yep, noted in consideration. Andrew.
ROMAN ANDREW CAMPLING: Firstly, agree with the last point. Whilst it's
tempting to go to evermore detail procedures and processes, if someone's
determined to gain the system and find loopholes, that will make it
easier. So I think vagueness and looseness is a feature, not a bug. I
would stick with the feature, would be my advice.
Three other quick points on the reason I came up.
First, it's great to see a combined DISPATCH session this time around. I
do urge you to continue to do that. The process stuff done to our cost
recently matters, putting that in a corner somewhere as an agenda bash
session that most people go to is a mistake. So whether the committee
wants it or not, I think you should force us to pay attention to that,
please.
Also, thank you for doing more outreach and showing up in more places,
whether it's the IESG, et cetera. It's really important. Just turning up
is well-received. And it just projects the message that this community
wants to engage with others and not sitting alone in a box by itself.
And then finally, since you thanked a lot of people, people we didn't
thank, the moderation team. It's a pretty thankless job with only
critics. They're not really the censorship team. They're all volunteers.
And I think it's amazing what they are prepared to do. So thank you to
them.
(Applause)
ROMAN DANYLIW: 100%.
BOB MOSKOWITZ: It was a long, long time ago. I still remember when. I
was IPSEC Chair and had an appeal. And I was on IAB, so I had to recuse
myself on the appeals process. It hasn't changed in these decades. I
congratulate you people on how you continue to manage this process
because it's hard. And thank you so much.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Thanks, Bob.
(Applause)
Okay. I observe that the queue is drained. I'm going to pause while
someone's looking for the button. If someone does not have Meetecho
logged in, can't make their comms work, and if you want to make a
comment at the mic line, please run to the mic line. Okay, I think
that's everything for the IESG. Thank you.
We're going to pivot over to the IETF LLC.
MIRJAM KÜHNE: Hello, again. Oh, there's George. I can see you here, and
you're also there. Excellent.
Well, I'm Mirjam Kühne, Chair of the IETF LLC Board. Maybe do a quick
introductions starting there on the far left from me. Yes.
SHAUNA TURNER: Shauna Turner, Director and Treasurer.
GONZALO CAMARILLO: Gonzalo Camarillo.
CHAIR DANYLIW: Roman Danyliw.
MIRJAM KÜHNE: And George.
GEORGE MICHAELSON: George Michaelson.
MIRJAM KÜHNE: Yeah. Any questions? Where's the queue? I don't see
anyone. This can't be true.
(Laughter)
Oh. Where don't -- no, I don't see it. Uh-oh.
STUART CHESHIRE: I'm from Apple. I have a question. Just ask honestly
without any bias. So hope it doesn't sound that way. Our next venue is
in Shenzhen, which is an hour away from the Hong Kong University. One of
the things that I think is really important for the IETF is to encourage
new engineers to get involved, so we're not just a bunch of old gray
beards. Do you know what the situation is like for students at Hong Kong
University? Can they travel freely to Shenzhen to attend the hackathon
or the IETF meeting?
MIRJAM KÜHNE: I don't know.
ROMAN DANYLIW: I would turn to Dirk.
DIRK KUTSCHER: So depends on their nationality and their visa situation;
but in general, yes. So there's not only Hong Kong University, actually
three cities and so on. So I think there are four or five plus the
university in Shenzhen, so I think they should all be coming. And it
should be possible for them, yeah.
MIRJAM KÜHNE: Excellent. Thanks, Dirk. I don't see anyone else in the
queue.
Wow, we all want to have an early night. Excellent. Well, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, board.
(Applause)
MIRJAM KÜHNE: Thanks, George.
ROMAN DANYLIW: Well, that's it, everyone. So we're done with all our
open mics. It's been fabulous having you here. Please have a good rest
of your evening.