IETF Plenary Session Wednesday, 19 July 2017 Prague, Czech Republic Minutes by Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat 1. Welcome (Suresh Krishnan for Alissa Cooper) * Suresh Krishnan welcomed the community to the IETF 99 Plenary. * New NoteWell in RFC 8179. * Thanks hosts Comcast NBC Universal CZ.Nic, Ondrej Filip and Glenn Deen 2. Host presentations (Glen Deen and Ondrej Filip) Glenn Deen from Comcast NBCUniversal and Ondrej Filip from CZ.NIC welcomed the IETF to Prague. Glenn Deen thanked the IETF for letting Comcast NBCUniversal be a part of the IETF. Ondrej Filip from CZ.NIC gave a brief history of the Czech language. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-cznic/) 3. Brief Updates IETF 99 Participant statistics: * 1204 onsite * 200 first time attendees * Representing 61 Countries. Process updates: * BCP 26 - IANA considerations section. * BCP 79, IPR in IETF Technology * RFC 8174, Key Words IASA 2.0: * Work ongoing to address challenges in administration and funding of the IETF. Revamped Website: * Beta site live - https://beta.ietf.org * Now soliciting feedback via GitHub and email (webmaster@ietf.org) Running Code at IETF: * Hackathon - phenomenal quality, almost 200 people * Code Sprint - volunteers working on codes for IETF Tools. They make our lives easier. * Thank all people at Code Sprint. 3.1. IETF/IESG (Suresh Krishnan) Incremental deployment of IPv6: * Considering an experiment for IETF 100 (Singapore) regarding IPv6. 3.2. IAB (Ted Hardie) * Report is online (https://www.iab.org/2017/07/16/iab-report-to-the-community-for-ietf-99/) * RFC Editor Updates - ISE stepping down, looking for successor. * RSE SOW out for community comment. * CFP for Workshop on Internet Naming Systems dates changed to October 10 and 11. * Appointments to CCG and RZERC * Statement on special use names * Liaisons to ICANN on IDN implementation guidelines, to Unicode Technical Committee TR39 3.3. OMBUDSTEAM/IRTF (Allison Mankin) * Expectations on Professional Behavior at the IETF * Link to IETF Code of Conduct (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7154) * Link to IESG Anti-harrassemtn policy (https://ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html) * Link to BCP for dealing with harassment cases (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776) * Ombudsteam is here to help (https://ietf.org/ombudsteam.html) IRTF (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-irtf-update/): * Every RG is meeting this IETF * New proposed RG had first meeting: Path Aware Networking RG. * ANRW - workshop held before IETF 99. There is a MeetEcho recording of it. * ANRP - 2 awardees to present in the IRTFOPEN meeting. 3.4. Administrative topics (Leslie Daigle, Ray Pelletier) Ray Pelletier thanked hosts Comcast NBC Universal, and CZ.NIC. The Hilton Prague was thanked for sponsoring the Welcome Reception. Akamai was thanked for being a Gold Sponsor. T-Mobile and Dial Telecom were thanked for being the Connectivity Sponsors. * Joe Abley taking on sponsorship coordination for the IETF. * Thanks to Code Sprinters * Thanks to NOC team, Linespeed, and MeetEcho. * Thursday speaker series is a panel, "Media and Entertainment Go IP" * Detailed IAOC report posted online. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iaoc-and-iad-report/) * Ray Pelletier retiring October 31, 2017. * Looking for an interim IAD. * Registration for IETF 100 at the end of the week. * IETF 102 moved to Montreal, now one week earlier. 3.5. IETF Trust (Kaveh Ranjbar) * Report online. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-ietf-trust-report/) * Trust keeps IETF property safe. * Current Trustees are IAOC members * Ray Pelletier retiring October 31, last of original trustees. * IANA Domain Transfer nearly complete. * IETF Trademarks renewed in the U.S. * Financial statements posted. 3.6. NomCom (Peter Yee) * Report online (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-nomcom-update/) * NomCom has been confirmed and seated. 10 voting members, 4 liaisons, chair, advisor * Current schedule has call for nominations going out in August, call for feedback in October, interviews in November, candidates announced in December/January. 4. Preview of IETF 100 (Benoît Claise) Benoit Claise announced that Cisco is pleased to host IETF 100 in Singapore. Social event will be held at the aquarium. 5. Recognition (Russ Housley, Michelle Cotton) Elise Gerich is retiring. She served as ICANN VP for IANA Services and as the President of Public Technical Identifiers. Major milestones: * Allocation of the last IPv4 address blocks to the RIRs. * Launching the DNS Root Zone Management System. * Managing the IANA functions during the stewardship transition. Russ Housley and Michelle Cotton presented Elise with a plaque in thanks. 6. IAB Open Mic Session Introductions of the IAB. There were no questions for the IAB. Olaf Kolkman offered a limerick. 7. IAOC Open Mic Session Introductions of IAOC. Yoav Nir asked the IAOC if a location for the IETF meeting in November of 2018 has been identified. Leslie Daigle stated that without a signed contract with a venue they can make no announcement regarding future meeting locations. Ray Pelletier added that they were working on places in Asia and contracting in Asia is difficult. Randy Bush complimented the IAOC on being more open and transparent regarding future plans and hotel issues. Jonathan Lennox asked when hotel reservations would open for the Singapore Meeting. Ray Pelletier indicated they would open up at the same time as registration opens. No further questions for the IAOC. 8. IESG Open Mic Session Introductions of the IESG. Olaf Kolkman debuted his improved limerick. John Klensin joined the meeting remotely to ask a question. He wanted to know how serious the IESG is about enabiling remote participation as full participation versus being a supplement to the in-person participation. Mirja Kühlewind replied that the IESG is continually discussing remote participation. She stated that face to face meetings are also important, and the IESG does not see a future without them yet, but that remote participants are not second class citizens. They are still testing new technologies to enrich remote participants experience and welcome feedback. John replied if remote participation is going to work it needs more attention from the IESH and WG Chairs on queue management. Alia Atlas added that the IETF has been investing in remote participation for a long time and improving it. Having the Jabber as a backup has proved extremely useful. The IESG is interested in hearing where the challenges are. They've discussed experimenting with hybrid queues but are still looking into practicalities. Leslie Daigle asked a follow-up question to John Klensin about the value of hallway conversations and how he compares remote participation to face to face participation as he has now done both. John indicated he was not a good person to ask. He indicated that he thought there were three types of remote participants. He is of the type who has participated both face to face and remote, and as such he knows who to contact if he needs help, more so than the newcomer or more casual participant participating remotely. If someone is a more never-participated in person, or less experienced, or both, the presence at the meetings and socials and hallway conversations are invaluable. Kathleen Moriarty agreed with John. She indicated that she had participated remotely for two meetings and was really glad to have that access. She had a very good experience with remote access. For newcomers, they'd miss out on some of the culture. Spencer Dawkins mentioned that there is still work to do for remote participation. He indicated the work was not just with the IETF Leadership, but the whole community. He indicated he'd met with Peter Yee and Lucy Lynch as the present and past NomCom Chairs about remote participants eligibility for NomCom. One subject that came up was having a plausible nominee for at least one position last year and it's not clear what the nomcom can do about getting feedback, it's not addressed in BCP101. THat's a conversation the IESG can't have in isolation. The IETF has gotten past the technical "can you connect" issues but are still figuring out what the next level looks like and how serious the community is about going there. Suresh Krishnan mentioned that people are contemplating what a completely virtual meeting. He indicated Dan York has a draft on this subject and encouraged people to read and comment. Kathleen indicated the IESG has limited time and suggested a design team to look at the subject more fully. John stated he was willing to work on this. Some of the community had looked at some of this long ago, not only NomCom eligibility and things that are tied to it, but a number of these other things and about how much participation is permitted, and training for remote attendees and chairs. Sean Leonard added that providing the ability to do consensus checking and hums remotely would be good. He noted that currently, there was no way to a hum without removing anonymity. Adding a virtual hum button and a show of hands button for the inevitable "how many people have read the draft" button to the tools would be appreciated. Mikael Abrahamsson mentioned he was a frequent jabber scribe and getting everything was good for giving a whole picture and documenting in real time. He didn't know if the jabber room could be captured on the screen. Different working groups have different ways to handle the jabber room. He wasn't convinced it was a tools issue, rather than just how a group chooses to utilize the tools. Spencer Dawkins added that was a good observation and added that the chairs need to be clear what a show of hands or a hum was for. Tobias Gondrom mentioned that the cost per head for remote participants is high. He mentioned if the community wanted to make remote participation equal to local attendee experience it would require money not in the budget. Eliot Lear added to the conversation that it would be helpful to know what the community was requested to comment on. Is there structure already for remote only meetings? Kathleen responded that they were looking to develop the current Internet-Draft further. Dan York added that the IESG had a "Many Couches" design team to begin the discussion on what remote-only participation would look like. It was difficult to image a remote-only meeting. He indicated he would send a pointer to the document to the attendees list (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manycouches-completely-virtual-meetings-04). Alia Atlas questioned the community interest. She mentioned many different scenarios and that the IETF leadership could use help with replicating the formal meetings, not hallway conversations. Phillip Hallam-Baker stated that it should not take an advanced degree to use the Internet. The IETF has a very inward facing culture, one that expects the rest of the world to figure it out. Or that it "should just work" and when it doesn't there is an issue in trying to find out why. He indicates this is a challenge the IETF should consider, that the IETF isn't taking the average consumer's needs seriously. If people buy IoT devices and their network fails they won't buy more. Mirja Kühlewind mentioned as a researcher this is a difficult problem, but isn't sure the IESG/IETF can do anything about it. Phillip replied that perhaps it is a question more for the IAB, but it is something he thinks the community should think about. Alia mentioned that it may be new work that is useful to think about. She agrees there could be better guidance for home networks. Spencer noted that he thought it about be a multilevel kind of issue involving the IETF, IRTF, and IAB. Benoit Claise asked what the life cycle of an IoT device is. Kathleen added that within the IoT groups the IETF has there are not many vendors. Perhaps documentation of this type is more fitting for groups that has those developers and vendors. Tara Al Abbadi mentioned as a newcomer to the IETF he wanted to express disappointment at the lack of translation services. He mentioned that the Internet is a global network, and should be managed with a global mindset. Michael Richardson asked if due to discussion of reducing the size of the IESG the IESG would be smaller in the near future. Ben Campbell replied that they can either try to reduce the work load per AD by raising the number of people to do that work, or reduce the number of people and raise the workload per person. He also mentioned that the work was cyclical, at least in the ART Area. Alia mentioned that all three routing ADs are basically full time working on IETF work. She mentioned that there would be a number of working groups finishing their work in the next 18 months, but there is no way of knowing how much new work would be coming in. If the community wants the IESG to also spend time working on NomCom, remote participation, IASA 2.0, and how to organize meetings better all those require time spent, and if the community wants to reduce the number of area directors, they also reduce the ability of those directors to concentrate on subjects not related to working group work. Spencer mentioned that the Transport Area requires about half time from them. Suresh Krishnan added that the reduction in load by having more people to do that work is helpful. It makes the AD role accessible to more people. Warren Kumari mentioned he started as an AD recently, and at the beginning the job was full time. But with the help of the area's directorates, it has become more manageable, and helps to focus where the AD's attention is most needed. Tim Chown introduced the subject that while MeetEcho and all the recordings were immensely valuable, he doesn't feel that the IETF can get away from face to face meetings. There was too much value in plenaries and hackathons and in person working group meetings. He mentioned the rise in virtual interim meetings and asked whether working groups should be trying to organize more such meetings. Spencer noted that the manycouches design team rose out of the Zika scare, and that the IETF was moving set meeting venues because of travel bans. Benoit added that different stages of work have different requirements. It would be difficult to have a virtual BoF meeting, or hallway conversation. When there are clear issues listed in a wiki, that is the time to do a virtual meeting to try to clear those specific issues. Alia agreed that virtual meetings when they make sense to happen. But realize that the IETF is a global community and time zone synchronization is a challenge. She mentioned that Simon Romano of MeetEcho made the point that virtual meetings should not be trying to get the same interactions as in physical space, but to utilize what interactions work better in virtual space. Alia went on to point out the community has a tendency of not interacting with IETFers who happen to be local when not at the IETF Meetings. There is a IETF group in Boston, MA, USA that has been experimenting with getting together. Dean Bogdanovic mentioned he has a problem with the way documents are being created. The RFC process is too slow. The IETF needs more ideas on how to iterate through models faster so vendors can implement faster. Benoit agreed, especially in OPS they need ways to iterate faster for modeling. Eric Rescorla agreed. He also noted that they were seeing people implementing certain pre-RFC I-Ds. And the need to have implementation experience before its ship. Alia mentioned there was a large amount of technical negotiations. She questioned if there a way to encourage more interoperability events where there is motivation to implement. Protocols continue to be added to, so there needs to be flexibility for features in the marketplace. Dean mentioned from working group last call to publication there are significant changes and vendors don't want to implement until it is stable. Alia added that there is a need for more people to be reviewing documents. Working group last call serves an important function, and there should be a clear distinction between the presentation layer and what the abstractions inside are. John Brzozowski added that one thing GitHub has looked at is automating testing. He also noted that sometimes what is needed is a virtualized work environment for a dry run, and vendor support is needed. Benoit agreed and added that there is movement in that direction. Sam Weiler mentioned he was in support of more virtual interim meetings, with more relaxed rules. And experimenting with the timezone issues might help. Alia mentioned that the IESG supports this, and had relaxed the rules, there was an updated statement on the Web site all chairs should familiarize themselves with. Kathleen added that the IESG encourages the timezone alternations, and that TEEP has been experimenting in that direction with some success. Benoit said that NETMOD had biweekly virtual interims for a while and it was efficient and should continue. Tobias Gondrom mentioned that DOTS has had success with one per IETF cycle - which means one six to eight weeks after the last IETF. Warren Kumari indicated if working group participants felt the need for an interim, they should suggest it to the chair. John Brzozowski asked if the IESG could summarize the v6 experiment for IETF 100. Suresh Krishnan said they would have details about the experiemnt in Singapore about a month before the meeting, but it was to ask people to try the ietf-nat64 SSID. Christian Huitema asked if the community needed to worry about an RFC 10,000 bug. Heather Flanagan reassured that they were aware of the potential issue, and have spent some programmer time on it already and she was unconcerned. No further questions. Meeting was adjourned.