Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Hi, On Mar 3, 2013, at 21:14, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: To be considered qualified the candidate needed to: a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case) b) have demonstrated IETF management expertise (current/former WG chair) c) have time available Generally speaking, people who can not satisfy (c) do not show up on the list of nominees, as they have to decline the nomination. There definitely are many people who have (a) and (b), but not (c). Were money not an issue, filing this position would be easy. it's not money issue. There are basically two pools of qualified people for a TSV AD position that requires a CC background: academia and industry. Academia typically means folks on tenure track. Putting that on hold for 2-4 years - even if someone (e.g., ISOC) would pay for the involvement - is not going to happen. You'd be severely risking getting tenure. Even for someone that already is tenured, the time commitment is too high. There are qualified people in the industry, and that's where most of the past ADs have come from. In the last few years, it's been increasingly harder to get them to step forward, because their employers are reluctant to let them spend the time. I actually think that this is because employers realize that these skills are important and rare to find, and so you want these guys to work on internal things and not donate them to the IETF. Lars
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 03/03/2013 20:14, Michael Richardson wrote: Eric == Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com writes: Eric There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither Eric of which I think is true, but we should consider the Eric possibility. The first is the TSV is too narrow a field to Eric support an area director and as such should be folded in with Eric another area. The second is if all of the qualified people Eric have moved on and no one is interested in building the Eric expertise the IESG feels is lacking, then industry and Eric academia have voted with their feet: the TSV is irrelevant and Eric should be closed. To be considered qualified the candidate needed to: a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case) b) have demonstrated IETF management expertise (current/former WG chair) c) have time available Generally speaking, people who can not satisfy (c) do not show up on the list of nominees, as they have to decline the nomination. There definitely are many people who have (a) and (b), but not (c). Were money not an issue, filing this position would be easy. The nomcom then needs to look at the remaining candidates and along with the confirming body (the IAB) determine if they can compromise on (a) or (b). Brian has suggested that (b) is more important than (a). What I'm saying is that if you have nobody that satisfies all three constraints, you have to make a choice, and the choice of (b)+(c) is a legitimate judgment call. I don't know whether NomCom did this and submitted it to the confirming body, or whether the NomCom failed to make a choice. Incidentally, while mulling this over, it occurred to me that RFC 3777 doesn't (I believe) talk about conflict of interest within the confirming bodies. I do recall members of the IAB and the ISOC Board recusing themselves from confirmation discussions on occasion, but that was done on an ad hoc basis. I wonder whether we should write something down about this. Brian
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 3/3/13 11:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Incidentally, while mulling this over, it occurred to me that RFC 3777 doesn't (I believe) talk about conflict of interest within the confirming bodies. I do recall members of the IAB and the ISOC Board recusing themselves from confirmation discussions on occasion, but that was done on an ad hoc basis. I wonder whether we should write something down about this. I tend to be unenthusiastic about publishing more process document but this sort of thing seems very worthwhile. If nothing else it seems worthwhile to think about and clarify our own policies. Melinda
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
The time commitment is a very good point, Dave. If we want to also involve people who do not work for big corporations (or get otherwise sponsored by big organizations) then the idea of having ADs review every document may need to get a bit relaxed. Today, almost all of the ADs (and IAB members) work for major enterprises. In companies managers typically do not get involved in every little technical detail but rather need to ensure that the work gets done. Maybe ADs could delegate more tasks to directorates, as it is done in the security area already. This also avoids the problem that an AD becomes the bottleneck in understanding the work that working groups produce. This happened in the past as well. Ciao Hannes On Mar 3, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 3/3/2013 4:56 AM, Eric Burger wrote: The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement. If that is really the problem, we have had areas with more than two ADs. Finding qualified Transport ADs has been a continuing problem for a number of years. This year's impasse was inevitable. Whatever the problem, it's deep-seated.[*] While the problem for Transport is extreme, it's generally difficult to find a good range of qualified candidates for AD. A major barrier is the time commitment to the job. And it's not really a 50% slot; the reality for most ADs seemed to be in the 75-100% range. This is a massive cost to their employer, both in raw dollars and opportunity cost -- ADs are typically senior contributors. That means removing a strategic resource from the company's main activities. To take a senior contributor away usually requires that the company be very large and have a very deep bench of talent. That's an onerous burden, in my view, and significantly reduces the pool of available candidates. The IESG needs to decide that the job is a 25% job -- an actual terms -- and then decide what tasks are essential to perform within that amount of time. This will require a significant change in the way ADs do their work. Reducing the real, budgeted time for an ADs job should significantly increase the pool of available candidates. As a side benefit, it should also significantly improve the diversity of the pool, along most parameters. As an obvious example of what to change, it means that ADs need to change their paradigm for document review. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Meetecho archive down? / Availability of collaboration services [was: Re: IETF chair's blog]
HI, the recordings are on-line again. Please contact t...@meetecho.com should you experience further issues. Thanks, Simon Il giorno 03/mar/2013, alle ore 18:09, Simon Leinen ha scritto: Simon Pietro Romano writes: we're actually moving the (Meetecho-operated) recordings server to a different datacenter. It will be up and running tomorrow morning. That's good to hear! Thanks for the quick update, and all the best for the move. -- Simon. Sorry about this inconvenience, Simon Simon Leinen simon.lei...@switch.ch ha scritto: [...] Right. As a data point, I haven't been able to access the archived Meetecho streams from past IETF meetings lately, e.g. http://recordings.conf.meetecho.com/Recordings/watch.jsp?recording=IETF84_TSVAREAchapter=part_3 [...] _\\|//_ ( O-O ) ~~o00~~(_)~~00o Simon Pietro Romano Universita' di Napoli Federico II Computer Engineering Department Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816 e-mail: sprom...@unina.it Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento Ë l'alibi degli idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio. Magritte. oooO ~~~( )~~~ Oooo~ \ (( ) \_) ) / (_/
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Dave said what I was thinking, but with many more words. *We* have put ourselves in a box. If we work the way we worked when we published 100 RFC's a year, we are sure to fail. As a side note, there are over 100 drafts in the RFC Editor queue this instant. As Dave and Hannes have pointed out, the IESG has effectively created the unwritten requirement, must work for a very large company. Look at the current IESG. Two thirds are directly employed by large companies. Of the five remaining, two have their IETF participation paid for by the US government and one has their participation paid for by the EU. One AD looks like he comes from academia, but really works in their FFRDC, which is a fancy term for a large company owned by a university. So, out of 15 Area Directors, we have precisely one who comes from a company or organization with less than $1B in revenues or direct government support. As has been pointed out numerous times, the 50% effort figure rapidly approaches 100%. That means we are telling the community that only people for whom their day job is being on the IESG are eligible to apply. Note my careful use of the word 'eligible.' How many people have been passed over for an AD nomination because they were unsure of where they would be working in a year or if they had employer support? The answer is a substantial number. I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. On Mar 4, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote: The time commitment is a very good point, Dave. If we want to also involve people who do not work for big corporations (or get otherwise sponsored by big organizations) then the idea of having ADs review every document may need to get a bit relaxed. Today, almost all of the ADs (and IAB members) work for major enterprises. In companies managers typically do not get involved in every little technical detail but rather need to ensure that the work gets done. Maybe ADs could delegate more tasks to directorates, as it is done in the security area already. This also avoids the problem that an AD becomes the bottleneck in understanding the work that working groups produce. This happened in the past as well. Ciao Hannes On Mar 3, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 3/3/2013 4:56 AM, Eric Burger wrote: The 50% time commitment is an IESG-imposed requirement. If that is really the problem, we have had areas with more than two ADs. Finding qualified Transport ADs has been a continuing problem for a number of years. This year's impasse was inevitable. Whatever the problem, it's deep-seated.[*] While the problem for Transport is extreme, it's generally difficult to find a good range of qualified candidates for AD. A major barrier is the time commitment to the job. And it's not really a 50% slot; the reality for most ADs seemed to be in the 75-100% range. This is a massive cost to their employer, both in raw dollars and opportunity cost -- ADs are typically senior contributors. That means removing a strategic resource from the company's main activities. To take a senior contributor away usually requires that the company be very large and have a very deep bench of talent. That's an onerous burden, in my view, and significantly reduces the pool of available candidates. The IESG needs to decide that the job is a 25% job -- an actual terms -- and then decide what tasks are essential to perform within that amount of time. This will require a significant change in the way ADs do their work. Reducing the real, budgeted time for an ADs job should significantly increase the pool of available candidates. As a side benefit, it should also significantly improve the diversity of the pool, along most parameters. As an obvious example of what to change, it means that ADs need to change their paradigm for document review. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [rfc-i] Call for Comment: RFC Format Requirements and Future Development
+1 As recently as ten years ago the third fastest supercomputer offered 12 Teraflops and 12Tb of storage. Today the same can be bought for $6,000. A Raspberry Pi casts $35 and has the same performance as the workstation class of ten years ago. Any proposal that says we should lock ourselves in to the technology constraints of the valve tube era of computing is stupid. There should be an immutable principle that people who want to contribute to the cutting edge of technology have access to recent software and reasonably up to date hardware and those that don't bother have to take responsibility for their personal choices rather than forcing the rest of us to adapt to their self-imposed limitations. On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: On Mar 1, 2013, at 9:59 AM, t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: There should be an immutable requirement that any alternative format MUST NOT increase the size by more than a factor of two compared to ASCII text. tongue position=incheek Given Moore's law, would that change 18 months from now to an immutable requirement of a factor of four? /tongue --Paul Hoffman ___ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? I think part of the fix is to consider more than just the IESG. We need to take look at the work across the IETF that goes into producing our documents and see if we can redistribute or reduce that work to lessen the workload on ADs ... if the goal is, indeed, to reduce the time commitment on individual ADs. The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. But that model doesn't scale. What about, for example, ensuring the quality in the documents as they come out of the WGs?, which distributes the work rather than concentrating it in IESG? This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. Agreed. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. Sure, for any specific issue. My personal experience is that I spend more time on the ordinary review processes than I do summing up the time on extra-ordinary technical arguments. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars - Ralph
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it, obviously. What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the directorates more into the process. It is thinking like that, how to do things different, that will get us out of the bind we have made for ourselves. Note that I am not married to the idea of expanding the role of directorates. I am married to the idea that we can think ourselves outside of the box. On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
One item to consider is to lower the work load of the AD, in particular in reviewing docs towards of the end of projects. Issues and dilemmas are piled on. I think one approach to lowering appeals, for example, is to address unresolved delicate WG issues much faster, in particular the tough ones that reach an impasse and no normal Rough WG consensus. This is where the AD may and has helped but I also suggest we have a group of peers that can quickly resolve (make decisions) the more delicate WG issues that tends to hold back progress and piled more work on people to do which runs the risk of lower quality result and also apathy (give up on the work). It may better to ignore it to avoid endorsing a controversial direction. I have had two ADs in the past both apologize for not dealing with issues (reading the I-D) a lot sooner. Perhaps, we should look at some of the IETF activities that makes it less appealing to even apply for the job. On 3/4/2013 8:07 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burgerebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 03/03/2013 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Clearly the NomCom felt it was between a rock and a hard place; I just want to assert the principle that balancing both managerial and technical abilities is within NomCom's remit. Brian There is a subtly in the manager vs technical expert debate that is worth noting. There are some technical managers who could do the job by leveraging the use of experts and coming up to speed on the key issues very quickly. However I would suggest that they are at least as rare and certainly at least as valuable to their employers as technical experts pool that we normally draw on. The level of competence needed would put such managers on a xVP or C* trajectory, and it seems to me that they are likely to be even more reluctant to take a career gap than the academic community. So it's not that the managers concept does not work, it's that it is even harder to identify them with some degree of certainly and then recruit the ones that the IETF would need. - Stewart
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? There is an obvious place to look for ideas: the directorates. See: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html We see that there are a number of differing implementations of these, even if the explanations try to follow RFC 2418. Variety is good! The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. Indeed -- we reject traditional management almost as much as kings and presidents. ;^) This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. (which doesn't scale...) This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. Wearing the hat of senior Narrative Scribe, I have watched the IESG deal with the increase in the number of documents they must review. I see a lot of variety, including folks saying, I'm not reviewing this one. I've been seeing a lot more reliance on the RFC Editor to work with authors based on notes attached to approved drafts. I will agree we need a broad range of expertise at the top; but we are learning to work around holes in that broad range. This does not bother me -- I date back to when there was _no_ barrier to publishing an RFC. Other folks worry about this more than I do -- that's fine. But wishing does not make it so. Directorates _could_ fill some of these holes; but it's not obvious that they always do. I suggest that those of us who worry about the holes put more effort into _how_ directorates could fill them, since we have long passed the point where fifteen experts can cover the whole field. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. (I really don't think there's much danger of that.) Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. We're _all_ volunteers! Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, How important is that, really? and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. I don't think we really believe in deadlines. I suspect we think of deadlines as damage we need to route around. ;^) Nonetheless, we could improve the overall result with any of a number of management tools. (Fundamentally, there will be a typical distribution of time- in-queue for directorate reviewers; and ADs waiting for reviews could prod before the scheduling becomes critical. Also, a system of noting review opportunities to the whole directorate, and accepting partial reviews from multiple members would improve information flow...) And, as Joel said earlier, (Joel has pointed out in private email how I misunderstood what he was saying... my apologies.) unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, I don't think anyone wants to go there! the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. Indeed, that is a common belief... but it has scaling problems. We might note that almost every DISCUSS by IETF Chair Russ Housley refers to a particular Gen-ART reviewer. I can't offhand recall a single case where Russ was asked to defend a technical argument of a Gen-ART reviewer. (Sometimes, he does add his own description: does that count?) The General Area is the most obvious place where scaling has hit us: the IETF Chair has grown so far beyond full-time that something has to give. Russ, I believe, reads Gen-ART reviews, not the original documents, and points out areas that rise to DISCUSS level. He asks for text to address these issues, and tends to clear his DISCUSS once the issue is better understood. (I should perhaps note that today's IESG has made great progress in trusting each other to put significant concerns in RFC Editor notes instead of continuing to block documents.) If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. I don't believe that's entirely true. Perhaps some IESG members can offer more information here. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... ;^) -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it, obviously. What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the directorates more into the process. It is thinking like that, how to do things different, that will get us out of the bind we have made for ourselves. Note that I am not married to the idea of expanding the role of directorates. I am married to the idea that we can think ourselves outside of the box. On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. [MB] Personally, I'm not at all seeing this concept of uniformity in terms of the output. I don't even see consistency amongst documents for specific WGs. We can't even agree how normative language should be used in documents. I've been a gen-art reviewer for 9.5 years and we don't even come close to producing consistent documents. I fully agree that there is significant value in the cross area reviews, in particular for security. But, I personally think that can happen as effectively at the directorate review as at the IESG level of review. [/MB] I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. [MB] I don't think anyone is suggesting to turn it into just a management job. It still requires someone with significant technical expertise in other areas. I don't think there's anyone hanging around in IETF that's being considered for IESG positions that doesn't have significant technical expertise in some areas. This problem has been around since I was Nomcom chair, so it seems that there is no easy solution - would there be a way to split the role, so that you do have a solid technical advisor, they just have to bother with reviewing documents unless they are brought to their attention and they don't have to worry about managing the day to day activities of WGs. I would be curious to know the typically time split between these two tasks for the average AD. [/MB] Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. [MB] This is where some people management skills come into place. [/MB] And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. [MB] That's true, but the effort is typically in identifying the discuss and my perspective would be that the AD would consult with the reviewer before clearing a discuss. I do find it quite puzzling that folks seem to think the ADs are the only ones qualified to review and identify issues in documents at this stage. For my documents, while I think the ADs might have identified gaps or areas where clarification would be useful, but I haven't found those to be of more value than gen-art reviews, for example. [/MB] If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote: On 03/03/2013 14:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Clearly the NomCom felt it was between a rock and a hard place; I just want to assert the principle that balancing both managerial and technical abilities is within NomCom's remit. Brian There is a subtly in the manager vs technical expert debate that is worth noting. There are some technical managers who could do the job by leveraging the use of experts and coming up to speed on the key issues very quickly. However I would suggest that they are at least as rare and certainly at least as valuable to their employers as technical experts pool that we normally draw on. The level of competence needed would put such managers on a xVP or C* trajectory, and it seems to me that they are likely to be even more reluctant to take a career gap than the academic community. [MB] I totally disagree. Not everyone aspires to be an xVP or anywhere near C* role. [/MB] So it's not that the managers concept does not work, it's that it is even harder to identify them with some degree of certainly and then recruit the ones that the IETF would need. [MB] I think the issue is that this community has great difficulty recognizing these folks, because they don't have those skills themselves and the technical expertise is generally the primary and sometimes only criteria in appointing IESG members. The Nomcom process does not require that the voting members have any experience at all in hiring - for some folks this may be the first time they've ever interviewed someone for a position and that's been clear to me in interviews I've had with NOmcom.. Certainly, the nomcom chair can try to compensate somewhat for this inexperience since the primary skill needed by an Nomcom chair is the ability to manage a process and people. [/MB] - Stewart
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to make sure that the process was followed. The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward the ITU model. Russ On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? I think part of the fix is to consider more than just the IESG. We need to take look at the work across the IETF that goes into producing our documents and see if we can redistribute or reduce that work to lessen the workload on ADs ... if the goal is, indeed, to reduce the time commitment on individual ADs. The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. But that model doesn't scale. What about, for example, ensuring the quality in the documents as they come out of the WGs?, which distributes the work rather than concentrating it in IESG? This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. Agreed. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. Sure, for any specific issue. My personal experience is that I spend more time on the ordinary review processes than I do summing up the time on extra-ordinary technical arguments. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars - Ralph
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
I think tasking the IESG to look at how to reduce the time commitment would be an incredibly good idea. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the community giving the IESG clear guidance that we'd like them to solve that problem than with the community trying to come up with the solution. That said, note that there are a number of AD candidates who do take explicit advantage of the full-time nature of the job. They get involved in IETF tools development, coordination between the IETF and other organizations, process reform, unstucking major issues that need to be unstuck. That's all great, but it does all take time. I'd like to live in an IETF where we have room for people who do want to spend a lot of time on all those issues as well as a place where ADs can take responsibility for the technical work in their area and minimize time commitments. I think the balance between personal review and trusting others is something that will shift both for individual ADs and over time. I'd hate to see the community over-constrain that.
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 15:57, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. We're _all_ volunteers! right, but ADs are basically full-time volunteers of whom the community expects a certain timeliness in terms of their actions and decisions. If those actions are delegated to volunteer bodies that feel less strongly about timeliness, the community isn't going to be very happy with the delays, or the review quality is going down (because some don't happen). Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, How important is that, really? I feel it is important. If some IDs get discusses for a certain problems and others slide under the radar, that's not a great result. and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. I don't think we really believe in deadlines. Really? After all the scribing you've done, surely you know that almost all the IESG reviewing happens on very strict deadlines. Two weeks, and in rare cases a defer adds another two weeks. Reviews not in by that time come too late. It *is* a challenge to get directorate reviews to appear within that timeframe. When Magnus and me ran the TSV directorate, we tried to schedule directorate reviews during IETF LC, and still quite a number didn't arrive by the IESG telechat date. The General Area is the most obvious place where scaling has hit us: the IETF Chair has grown so far beyond full-time that something has to give. Russ, I believe, reads Gen-ART reviews, not the original documents, and points out areas that rise to DISCUSS level. He asks for text to address these issues, and tends to clear his DISCUSS once the issue is better understood. (I should perhaps note that today's IESG has made great progress in trusting each other to put significant concerns in RFC Editor notes instead of continuing to block documents.) I think SAAG is a better example. The general area has no technical focus area it's responsible for, and so the reviews are all over the place. (But they are still useful! More eyes help.) But even with the large amount of quality reviewing SAAG is doing, the expertise of the SEC ADs is still crucial. I wouldn't want to only rely on SAAG. If a management AD wanted to substitute directorate expertise for personal expertise, that particular directorate would as a whole need to operate under the timeliness, consistency and quality constraints that a technical expert AD would. I simply don't see that happening. Lars
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com as an area director, it was not the technical load which was hard, and i read every single draft (draft load has grown since). it was the social and political 'work'. One possibility might be to split TSV into two areas, so the workload on the TSV ADs (both technical and social) is reduced. Dale
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
+1, if anything we need to move away from the ITU model. /Loa Skickat från min iPhone 4 mar 2013 kl. 16:26 skrev Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com: The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to make sure that the process was followed. The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward the ITU model. Russ On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? I think part of the fix is to consider more than just the IESG. We need to take look at the work across the IETF that goes into producing our documents and see if we can redistribute or reduce that work to lessen the workload on ADs ... if the goal is, indeed, to reduce the time commitment on individual ADs. The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. But that model doesn't scale. What about, for example, ensuring the quality in the documents as they come out of the WGs?, which distributes the work rather than concentrating it in IESG? This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. Agreed. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. Sure, for any specific issue. My personal experience is that I spend more time on the ordinary review processes than I do summing up the time on extra-ordinary technical arguments. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars - Ralph
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mar 4, 2013, at 16:42, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: One possibility might be to split TSV into two areas, so the workload on the TSV ADs (both technical and social) is reduced. Doesn't help much. Management of ones area takes some time, but at least as much time is spend on dealing with document review and discussions outside the area. Lars
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
+1 to Mary's comments.. few words in line.. Elwyn Davies On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 09:11 -0600, Mary Barnes wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it, obviously. What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the directorates more into the process. It is thinking like that, how to do things different, that will get us out of the bind we have made for ourselves. Note that I am not married to the idea of expanding the role of directorates. I am married to the idea that we can think ourselves outside of the box. On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. [MB] Personally, I'm not at all seeing this concept of uniformity in terms of the output. I don't even see consistency amongst documents for specific WGs. We can't even agree how normative language should be used in documents. I've been a gen-art reviewer for 9.5 years and we don't even come close to producing consistent documents. I fully agree that there is significant value in the cross area reviews, in particular for security. But, I personally think that can happen as effectively at the directorate review as at the IESG level of review. [/MB] [EBD] I have also been a gen-art reviewer for about a long as Mary and I totally agree that consistency is not what we get, especially on the quality front. However really the only consistencies that are really vital are comprehensibility and technical quality. Variations in style make life a little more entertaining and I would prefer not to resort to some sort of uniform legalese - in any case, not all drafts are talking about the same sort of thing. And, yes, multiple reviews with different points of view do help. [/EBD] I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. [MB] I don't think anyone is suggesting to turn it into just a management job. It still requires someone with significant technical expertise in other areas. I don't think there's anyone hanging around in IETF that's being considered for IESG positions that doesn't have significant technical expertise in some areas. This problem has been around since I was Nomcom chair, so it seems that there is no easy solution - would there be a way to split the role, so that you do have a solid technical advisor, they just have to bother with reviewing documents unless they are brought to their attention and they don't have to worry about managing the day to day activities of WGs. I would be curious to know the typically time split between these two tasks for the average AD. [/MB] [EBD] Maybe the difference between what I do and the AD's reviewing job is context. Mine is diffuse - I have a general idea what is going on and enough background to recognize when something might be broken; I also have enough understanding to recognize when a novice would get lost in a document that has its head down in the sands of jargon and groupthink. We call ADs AREA Directors presumably because they have the context of their area in mind when reviewing; I don't. Hopefully, an AD is not seeing a doc that comes to the IESG for the very first time because s/he has got some idea of what is going on in the WG or has sponsored a doc. Hopefully (again) this gives the AD some context in which to view the document, know its importance overall, interpret comments from others and home in on key areas where they anticipate there might be concerns; so there is synergy between the managemnt and technical reviewing tasks. Area directorates probably fall in between on the context scale. But ultimately the AD is called upon to make one or more judgment calls both as regards documents and the performance of WGs. I would be extremely unhappy if these calls were purely management exercises - they need a combination of technical nous, management
Re: IETF Challenges
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net At 07:38 AM 3/3/2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Under the IETF role it is very easy of WG chairs to ignore minority participants of large communities. I've come to the conclusion - possibly wrong - that you're lacking some basic understanding in the operational model of the IETF. Unlike most other standards bodies, the IETF tries to get good technical contributions from smart technical people, not based on voting status of their company or country. If you have a good idea, [etc.] Let me try to explain that point in a different way. The model that the IETF attempts to follow -- and generally does fairly well at following -- is to consider all participants as *individuals* not as *representatives* (of particular companies, of particular countries, or of particular communities). All may speak, but not all are listened to. One is listened to depending on one's reputation. Basically, that reputation is established by sound technical contribution. It generally takes around a year of useful contribution for one to gain a reputation. However it is true that consistent attendance at IETF meetings will improve the recognition of one's technical talents, if one has those talents. Occasionally a participant has attempted to enhance his influence by declaring that his technical proposal is backed by his employer, which is an economically powerful vendor. Inevitably, this causes the person to be considered to be an idiot, and his proposal is then completely ignored. Based on this, WG chairs find it easy to ignore -- and they are *supposed* to place little weight on -- people whose contributions have little technical merit, and conversely, they pay great attention to people whose contributions consistently have technical merit. Unfortunately, these factors mean that a smaller proportion of respected contributors come from backgrounds or communities with lower levels of education or less deployment of Internet technology -- there is no mechanism, indeed, no intention, to ensure that various sectors receive equal representation. The IETF and the Internet Society have tried in various ways to reduce the barriers (especially money barriers) to participation for competent people from such backgrounds. But if there are no competent people who can be attracted to participate, that community will have no representative -- even if that community has particular technical needs which the IETF desires to satisfy. In any particular instance, if one knows of some particular technical consideration that is important for a particular community, and is having trouble getting attention in a working group for that consideration, it is useful to talk privately with various well-respected members of the working group (including the chair(s)) to ask what course of action would be best for gaining the needed attention. Listen to the feedback. If the advisers do not see the importance of the issue, consider whether it really is important, and consider how to make clearer its importance. If the advisers suggest a course of action, follow it. Because reputations are built of doing good work in a series of particular instances. Dale
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 3/4/2013 7:26 AM, Russ Housley wrote: The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to make sure that the process was followed. The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward the ITU model. As specious lines of logic go, your note was pretty efficient. It ignored the specifics of the concerns being raised in this thread, their merits, and the suggestions being made, and it invokes a cliche'd bogeyman. For example, the suggestions being made do not intent or imply that there would be no technical content to the work of an AD. Also note that there are many things that the ITU does; are we supposed to make a point of not doing any of them, simply because the ITU does them? The IETF culture, structure and process are massively different from the ITU's. None of the changes being proposed would turn the IETF into the ITU or even move us towards them. If the merit of a suggestion is good or bad, let's focus on that, rather than on who else is or is not doing it. But if you really want to focus on ITU fear, take a look at the time it now takes to produce IETF specs, their increased complexity and the degree of their eventual industry deployment. A comparison on the style and substance of IETF vs. ITU technical work might prove enlightening... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/13 6:38 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. But that model doesn't scale. What about, for example, ensuring the quality in the documents as they come out of the WGs?, which distributes the work rather than concentrating it in IESG? There is technical work other than late-stage document reviews. We might get a larger return on investment if community members who are temporarily serving in the area director role were to spend more of their combined technical and management talent on making sure that our working groups are solving the right engineering problems for the long-term health of Internet. If that leads to fewer working groups producing higher-quality output, so be it. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRNM7uAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pxZ8P/RRkmv2y6i5A5h6nRA7f27vV IRtjBZv0sR3SLvF0wo/i2x6ko4IdpEzxFfTun5GdEPUB5Ty+a1FGv6FEnkyISESO 0c7iJKLlvbKzGMMQpm6Xzcc7a/Wco80d1xKs/cjN9yDmA4wOgWrXsIfQyRNp0ced QdWXrLYF74brx0YOzLmDL8rpwQO//NO8ZZrGHl7jHEAeD7wiD57lPUzUJKwW8Mr4 5whZ0rI97tfDU1NV5dc+YKy86D/ahbjsFTCX7/PLCElM0m9A4vZVncYtlAuXtHrZ d02sBrEF+y60MEOB0LU7k5bw/RbD3r5X9GTChPTCMQJiTuuBaYnALT/hXrirpQC4 NvlOU3JL9/27ep2ZMCk6UJ2AtolNxAA/z139EaraVA4LZrhvoPM7EUF4mjpiFIKM wG2r8vUJW9JSS6GuzuD2X/YNEErBUJk7ejpTGkPHspw/yj8t6ogaSYDk+FoNAymi WIdHk1AjGyDP8qLapUwVRwMGkJz59nfQdOf8UMMHtqr/Kr6uVgzLw3VM0HSkFUNM ZCE/9Xm6+jV5vWcEhVEU4WV2QrtEnYEKzCAcapByUXvWjADnexVq1docwVA6z805 CQv+fGrxtaXCbUii8VuOpkErL4MNoXXMyScCKEEnodCcIQ9BClc5QmATNooaakjq L5lfxuqsqXDmWWm7I803 =xbOC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote: I'd like to live in an IETF where we have room for people who do want to spend a lot of time on all those issues as well as a place where ADs can take responsibility for the technical work in their area and minimize time commitments. I think the balance between personal review and trusting others is something that will shift both for individual ADs and over time. I'd hate to see the community over-constrain that. I strongly agree with Sam's point here. When we have these discussions, we often try to over-engineer the people aspects. Especially given our nomcom process (versus the hiring process that proceeds from inside a management or a standing board), over-constraining is pretty doomed. Allison
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:42:22AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: long-term health of Internet. If that leads to fewer working groups producing higher-quality output, so be it. I'd go further and say, That's a bonus. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the specific area. It's a practical matter. Regards Brian On 04/03/2013 15:26, Russ Housley wrote: The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to make sure that the process was followed. The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward the ITU model. Russ On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Hi, On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? I think part of the fix is to consider more than just the IESG. We need to take look at the work across the IETF that goes into producing our documents and see if we can redistribute or reduce that work to lessen the workload on ADs ... if the goal is, indeed, to reduce the time commitment on individual ADs. The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. But that model doesn't scale. What about, for example, ensuring the quality in the documents as they come out of the WGs?, which distributes the work rather than concentrating it in IESG? This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time. Agreed. I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job. Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all. And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for the initial review. Sure, for any specific issue. My personal experience is that I spend more time on the ordinary review processes than I do summing up the time on extra-ordinary technical arguments. There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents... Lars - Ralph
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
There is technical work other than late-stage document reviews. We might get a larger return on investment if community members who are temporarily serving in the area director role were to spend more of their combined technical and management talent on making sure that our working groups are solving the right engineering problems for the long-term health of Internet. If that leads to fewer working groups producing higher-quality output, so be it. It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a slightly different way -- like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's not useful. -- Jon Postel
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
My humble suggestion is to go with a single AD for Transport Area. I think it could work. Regards, Behcet On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: Dear IETF Community, The 2012-2013 IETF nomination process has not yet filled the Transport Area Director position despite several attempts to broaden the pool of nominees. The whole community conveys our most sincere gratitude to the existing nominees for this position. However, it seems that no candidate has yet been found that meets the specific IESG-provided requirements and is also able to make the necessary time commitment. Requirements for IESG positions can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/iesg-requirements The TSVAREA session at IETF 86 will include a discussion on the difficulty in locating a Transport Area Director candidate that meets these position requirements and is also able to make the necessary time commitment. The outcome of the discussion cannot be predicted in advance. Since this discussion could lead to a change in the IESG requirements, the IESG encourages the community to take part in this discussion so that any changes are based on broad community input. On behalf of the IESG, Russ Housley
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Brian Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we Brian are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint Brian technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the Brian specific area. It's a practical matter. I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area covered. In some cases, this was solved by splitting work load. In some cases it was covered by having the AD learn a lot. In one case the AD came in having huge gaps in half of the area in question. Today that person is considered an expert in one of the areas where he had the largest gaps and is focusing most of his effort there. I wouldn't want someone on the IESg without a strong technical presence in the IETF. It matters less to me whether it's in the area in question. And yes, I've thought about how I'd feel if someone jumped from another area to security. I can think of a number of APS or RAI ADs who I think could succeed in the security area if they decided to put in the effort to learn on the job. It would be a huge investment in effort, but it could succeed. IESG-level review of a document really is a skill that can be learned. It helps to have a lot to draw on, but I don't believe anyone can (or does) have coverage of all the areas they are reviewing. The huge part of the skill is to figure out how to do the technical job even given that. It involves trusting others sometimes, reading discussions, learning new things. Sometimes though, you do just have to spend the effort to understand some particular issue well enough to make an informed opinion. Having experts in areas doesn't escape this. When there's an appeal or a disagreement between areas it can be important for ADs to come up to speed on an issue outside their area and make an informed decision about it. So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the AD joins the IESG. --Sam
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote: Brian Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we Brian are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint Brian technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the Brian specific area. It's a practical matter. I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area covered. In some cases, this was solved by splitting work load. In some cases it was covered by having the AD learn a lot. In one case the AD came in having huge gaps in half of the area in question. Today that person is considered an expert in one of the areas where he had the largest gaps and is focusing most of his effort there. I wouldn't want someone on the IESg without a strong technical presence in the IETF. It matters less to me whether it's in the area in question. And yes, I've thought about how I'd feel if someone jumped from another area to security. I can think of a number of APS or RAI ADs who I think could succeed in the security area if they decided to put in the effort to learn on the job. It would be a huge investment in effort, but it could succeed. IESG-level review of a document really is a skill that can be learned. It helps to have a lot to draw on, but I don't believe anyone can (or does) have coverage of all the areas they are reviewing. The huge part of the skill is to figure out how to do the technical job even given that. It involves trusting others sometimes, reading discussions, learning new things. Sometimes though, you do just have to spend the effort to understand some particular issue well enough to make an informed opinion. Having experts in areas doesn't escape this. When there's an appeal or a disagreement between areas it can be important for ADs to come up to speed on an issue outside their area and make an informed decision about it. So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the AD joins the IESG. [MB] I totally agree. That's one of the points I've been trying to make (in a far less succinct manner). [/MB] --Sam
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Dave: The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to make sure that the process was followed. The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward the ITU model. As specious lines of logic go, your note was pretty efficient. It ignored the specifics of the concerns being raised in this thread, their merits, and the suggestions being made, and it invokes a cliche'd bogeyman. For example, the suggestions being made do not intent or imply that there would be no technical content to the work of an AD. Also note that there are many things that the ITU does; are we supposed to make a point of not doing any of them, simply because the ITU does them? The IETF culture, structure and process are massively different from the ITU's. None of the changes being proposed would turn the IETF into the ITU or even move us towards them. If the merit of a suggestion is good or bad, let's focus on that, rather than on who else is or is not doing it. But if you really want to focus on ITU fear, take a look at the time it now takes to produce IETF specs, their increased complexity and the degree of their eventual industry deployment. A comparison on the style and substance of IETF vs. ITU technical work might prove enlightening... Several people suggested that the AD could be a manager with little technical clue. I raised the extreme of that line of thinking. It is clear that no single person has all of the detailed knowledge to review every aspect of every IETF document. That said, it is very important that the AD have enough clue to detect a probable concern, and then they can turn to appropriate experts in the form of directorates, personal contacts, or even a plea for the right mail list. This requires some insight into the core technologies for the area and good working relationships within the area. Russ
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: Dave: The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to make sure that the process was followed. The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step toward the ITU model. As specious lines of logic go, your note was pretty efficient. It ignored the specifics of the concerns being raised in this thread, their merits, and the suggestions being made, and it invokes a cliche'd bogeyman. For example, the suggestions being made do not intent or imply that there would be no technical content to the work of an AD. Also note that there are many things that the ITU does; are we supposed to make a point of not doing any of them, simply because the ITU does them? The IETF culture, structure and process are massively different from the ITU's. None of the changes being proposed would turn the IETF into the ITU or even move us towards them. If the merit of a suggestion is good or bad, let's focus on that, rather than on who else is or is not doing it. But if you really want to focus on ITU fear, take a look at the time it now takes to produce IETF specs, their increased complexity and the degree of their eventual industry deployment. A comparison on the style and substance of IETF vs. ITU technical work might prove enlightening... Several people suggested that the AD could be a manager with little technical clue. I raised the extreme of that line of thinking. [MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with proven technical skills in another area that also is good at managing projects/people could do a reasonable job. From what I have seen this has certainly been the case in other areas - i.e., ADs that don't have depth of knowledge in all the WGs in their areas, but are strong technical individuals in other areas. The problem seems to be that folks value the technical expertise far more than they do project and people management skills. The end result is that there are some really strong technical people in leadership roles that have little ability to manage things well and very poor people interaction skills. The latter is certainly a very negative personality trait when it comes to motivating and managing volunteers. [/MB] It is clear that no single person has all of the detailed knowledge to review every aspect of every IETF document. That said, it is very important that the AD have enough clue to detect a probable concern, and then they can turn to appropriate experts in the form of directorates, personal contacts, or even a plea for the right mail list. This requires some insight into the core technologies for the area and good working relationships within the area. Russ
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 03/04/13 12:51, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com allegedly wrote: [MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with proven technical skills in another area that also is good at managing projects/people could do a reasonable job. Yes because they have demonstrated technical clue and therefore have already demonstrated that they can pick up the essence of the issues in an area, enough to ask the right questions and have insight into priorities - otherwise they couldn't have got where they are. We've done this before.
congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)
changed the subject ... and added a cc to some that might not follow ietf@ On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I think is true, but we should consider the possibility. The first is the TSV is too narrow a field to support an area director and as such should be folded in with another area. The second is if all of the qualified people have moved on and no one is interested in building the expertise the IESG feels is lacking, then industry and academia have voted with their feet: the TSV is irrelevant and should be closed. Since I believe neither is the case, it sounds like the IESG requirements are too tight. I don't believe the requirements are too tight. *Someone* one the IESG needs to understand congestion control. The likely possibility is that many qualified people failed to get sufficient employer support to be able to volunteer. It's at least a 50% time committment. I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where does it apply? ... :-) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no
Search plugins to make it easy to find IETF information
I've composed some simple web browser search plugins to make it easy to locate ITEF information. These are expressed in one of the portable search plugin formats. For Mozilla, you put these in the 'searchplugins' folder (which is ~/.mozilla/firefox/.default/searchplugins on Linux). Dale -- iana-assignments.xml searches for the given words in the IANA protocol assignments pages. It generally finds the registry for the item in question within the first few hits. SearchPlugin xmlns=http://www.mozilla.org/2006/browser/search/; ShortNameIANA assignments/ShortName DescriptionIANA protocol assignments/Description InputEncodingUTF-8/InputEncoding Image height=16 width=16 type=image/x-icon KBAgAQAIAHt3AABQiwAAQpUAAD6Y AABFnQMAdIUEAGqdBQBLnQYASZ0HAJVmCgCGegoATaMLAFeiDgBIjhEAUKERAFSpEgCxYhMA jXcTAHWSEwCkXBQAhYIUAJtsFQBplhYAlnQXAKNlGQCQVBsAWKQbAFqmHwB%2FVyEAXakjAJle JACZdSYAeZwmAGGqKQBUiiwAplUvAHmlLwBlYjAAlzs0AGqvNACqYjYAUGI6AG6xOgByrzsA pn1AAKdsQgCgdEcAsnpMAHq3TACNrk0AdUtOALyFTgBpYU8AnkZRAGN6UQCfhVUAg7xWAIdw WACSo1gAqFtaALZ4WgCrbV8ArpRjAHJ%2BaQCRw2kAd4hqALd5bACzuHMAvnJ5AJzKeQCnwnsA tG99AL2ChwCRiYcAqs6HAKnQigDFjY0Aw3ySAJOQkgDEkpIAzriSAL%2FKkwC%2B0ZQAn56bAMrE ngC6354Ay5efAM6jnwDUtaIAqKikAL3bpQDJk6YAsrKyAL6%2BuQDcwr0AzuW9ANy0vgDf2L4A 2sfAANHowADjr8QAxMTEANTnxADg4coA2uvNAO3c0ADe7dIA1dXVANjX1wDc29sA7tffAPDt 4ADv7%2BEA4%2BPjAOz05ADz3OYA7%2FfpAPX27AD0%2BfAA8vLyAPb78wD3%2FPUA%2Bfz3APv9%2BQD%2F7%2FsA %2FPz7AP7%2B%2FgAA AGtZSUlTZXcA bDkZJiYTExw0XAAAXR4QIzUjGBUXHzJObR4QEzs7GBUXET1EJVkAfi4QEyhH LRURCixNNwYpcWk8ExNCSB8RChRPTxYMDVNYW0w8Vj4KFAU%2BZDoHDg8%2FMy9XYGA%2BAAUSXmIa Dg4PNiwJF1huc1QgMXxGBA4ODzZQHwBhZ1F%2BfXJ5HQgODg9Bb3ZDdVIBK19%2BekULCA4OWXBD dX5KAgMnfnZ%2BajgLIncARiR4eFobMH4wQHR%2BWl0AAABAeUVacmZ6GwMaVW0AfntAAypo ejgIIWMAdEowS3p2anYA%2BA8AAOAHAADAAwAAgAEA gAEAAMADAADABwAA8A8AACggQAEACAAA AABYkQAAQZkAAGeMAQB5ewIAaZIFAEecBQBdlgYAhnkHAHCd CQB1iwwATZ8MAJBtDQCEfw0AfIUOAE%2BgDwBamxAAUKERAI14EgBTpxIAVqoSAKddEwBPmhQA qWMWAJ1rFwCUchgAbZsYAFSjGABJhxkAlFoaAFilHAB3mR4Ap1ggAE55IwCIkCgAZ6gqAKZn KwCdSC4Al28vAICcLwB4VTAAaK4yAFWDMwCffzcAmTg5AFFnOQB1rDkAjKg8AHGzPQBeSEIA mI5CAKJRSQCdRkoAqI1MAH25TgBXVU8ArGxQAHlRUQCIY1IAmrVYAKdZXwCKwGAAw5ppAG5s agCvYmsAuH1vAJbHbwCxanAAr2hyAKu5cgC0bnMAtY90AI2KdgC2dHwAfX18AMKQgQC%2BnYEA o82BALqxhQC2xoUAvHyHAImIhwDBhYwArNKNAMy0kADEjJMAucOWALTXmQDKl5oAmpqaAMvM nADOm6MA0bOjAMHbpwDUp60Ara2tAMPfrgDWqbMA27O5AN%2FSvADR5b8A37nBAMnIxwDZ58gA 5MfKAOfdzADpz9QA1tbWAObu2QDs2doA8dTeAPHf4wDr9OMA9OPoAOrq6QDz9%2B0A%2BPXxAPX6 8QD57vIA9fX1APj79QD98vkA%2Bvr5APr9%2BQD9%2BPsA%2FP37AP%2F%2F%2FwAA AAB2al5eWFhYXl5sdgAA AAB2ZVA%2BMDAwMDA2Nj5YZXwAZT4nHCQrKysfFhQcJzY2SWUA dkknFBYfKysrJBQUFhYXFxg2Nlh2AHE5FBYUFCQzMzMf FBYXFxcYGCU4NklxAABxJxYUFBQfMjMyMhQWFxcXGBgYNz87NklxdjkW FBQUFDI7OzsfFxcXFxgYESVDP0U5NlB5AABHFhQUFBQfOz87NxcXFxgYGAwRRUVFRSEg Nl4AZRQUFBQUFDc%2FQkUjFxcYGBERDDdPSE80AggsPnEqFBQUFBQfRUhINxcYGBgR DAwqUU9RRgQEDxU2WAAAYjcUFBQUFCNPT08qFxgREQwMDUZUVFchBg8PEyA%2BcQBXT0AjFBQW QFFUQBgYEREMDA0xWldaRgYPDxAaFTZlc1RRVFRAIxdUV1c0CxEMDAwNCUtdXV0mChAQEBAS LFhoSlpXV1pXSlpaWioHDAwNDQkxYWFhTQoQEBAQEBIgUFMWN1pgXV1gXWFLBwwMDQ0JAk1n Z2ciChAQEBAQEhtJPRQWI0ZhZGFkZFsxAw0JCQIeZ2ltVQUQEBAQEBASG0k9FhcXCypTZ2dn
Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)
rgensen == rgensen Roger writes: rgensen I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will rgensen answer in an educational way - Why is congestion control so rgensen important? And where does it apply? ... :-) The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport protocols that need to do congestion control. Further, the (current) split of work means that all of the groups that need congestion oversight would be cared for by the position that is currently becoming empty as Wes leaves. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgp_x2V_NHXrF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)
On 3/4/2013 10:20 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where does it apply? ... :-) Ouch. Because without it (as we learned the hard way in the late 1980s) \ the Internet may collapse and provide essentially no service. It applies to everyone who sends packets into the Internet, potentially. OTOH, it is a collective phenomenon; as long as most Internet users are using TCP, it does not matter much what an individual non-TCP user does. TCP comes with the Gold Standard congestion control. Maybe the IETF could and should invite Van Jacobson to attend ab IETF meeting to reprise one of his talks from 20 years ago. Bob Braden
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Mary: On 3/4/13 6:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: [MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with proven technical skills in another area that also is good at managing projects/people could do a reasonable job. From what I have seen this has certainly been the case in other areas - i.e., ADs that don't have depth of knowledge in all the WGs in their areas, but are strong technical individuals in other areas. I am very sorry to have to say this, but we are all dancing around the issue that we have experience of where the above has been shown to simply not work well. And this is why it is important for a NOMCOM that gets into such a situation to do exactly what this NOMCOM did: consult with the IESG to determine the need to have a body versus have the right person. The problem seems to be that folks value the technical expertise far more than they do project and people management skills. The end result is that there are some really strong technical people in leadership roles that have little ability to manage things well and very poor people interaction skills. The latter is certainly a very negative personality trait when it comes to motivating and managing volunteers. [/MB] That happens from time to time, let's agree. And maybe it is the price we pay for the model we have. And maybe that's a trade-off worth having. This is not to say that the IESG shouldn't evolve its working methods, by the way. But it is possible to get it wrong. Eliot
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Sam: So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the AD joins the IESG. We mostly agree. We both agree that strong technical contribution is an important aspect of the qualification. However, I believe that some basic clue in the Area is needed. Could you image serving with a Security Co-AD that could not explain how cryptography could be used for authentication? Without some fundamental understanding, I do not see how the AD would know when to seek additional expert review. Russ
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Sam, On 3/4/13 6:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area covered. In some cases, this was solved by splitting work load. In some cases it was covered by having the AD learn a lot. In one case the AD came in having huge gaps in half of the area in question. Today that person is considered an expert in one of the areas where he had the largest gaps and is focusing most of his effort there. We're here because of the extremely specialized nature of transport. PhDs who specialize in it have gotten it wrong. One such person drove Van Jacobson into the field, as I recall. There are very few people who get it right. And yet it's so close to the waist of the hour glass that it's critical to get right. Security has a lot of visibility and so it will never have this very same problem. IESG-level review of a document really is a skill that can be learned. It helps to have a lot to draw on, but I don't believe anyone can (or does) have coverage of all the areas they are reviewing. The huge part of the skill is to figure out how to do the technical job even given that. It involves trusting others sometimes, reading discussions, learning new things. Sometimes though, you do just have to spend the effort to understand some particular issue well enough to make an informed opinion. Having experts in areas doesn't escape this. When there's an appeal or a disagreement between areas it can be important for ADs to come up to speed on an issue outside their area and make an informed decision about it. So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the AD joins the IESG. Please let's not overgeneralize. I'm not on the NOMCOM but I know it is not every area we are having this problem, it's transport. Eliot
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Eliot == Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com writes: Eliot Sam, Eliot On 3/4/13 6:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: Eliot We're here because of the extremely specialized nature of Eliot transport. PhDs who specialize in it have gotten it wrong. Eliot One such person drove Van Jacobson into the field, as I Eliot recall. There are very few people who get it right. And yet Eliot it's so close to the waist of the hour glass that it's Eliot critical to get right. Security has a lot of visibility and Eliot so it will never have this very same problem. I absolutely agree that there are few people who can design certain aspects of transport protocols. (I'll note that security has this problem too: designing crypto is really hard; I wouldn't be too quick to be sure that transport is so much more difficult than the hardest problems of other areas.) Fortunately, an AD need not do all the work in their area; they only need to review it. The entire IETF is founded on the idea of consensus. Central to that is the idea that we can get together as a group and by doing so we'll come up with better specifications. Not every person will be able to design the inputs to that process: new proposals and discoveries of problems in existing proposals. Some aspects of that really do require expert knowledge. my claim is that the AD skill set should be focused around evaluating these inputs, coming up with an opinion, and explaining that opinion to others. I don't believe that reviewing internet-drafts in transport, reviewing reviews of thoes drafts, evaluating whether enough review has happened, making an informed opinion about issues that were raised and explaining that opinion to the community requires the same level of expertise in transport as designing TCP. It does require significant experience, both technical and management. I stand behind my original comments.
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: Mary: On 3/4/13 6:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: [MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with proven technical skills in another area that also is good at managing projects/people could do a reasonable job. From what I have seen this has certainly been the case in other areas - i.e., ADs that don't have depth of knowledge in all the WGs in their areas, but are strong technical individuals in other areas. I am very sorry to have to say this, but we are all dancing around the issue that we have experience of where the above has been shown to simply not work well. And this is why it is important for a NOMCOM that gets into such a situation to do exactly what this NOMCOM did: consult with the IESG to determine the need to have a body versus have the right person. [MB] I mentioned in another email that yes, indeed, we do have experience where appointing someone that didn't have the depth of knowledge did not work well. But, as I said in my email, I don't so much think it was because the filling of the position with an individual so much as it was the fact that there is no way for a Nomcom to anticipate how an individual will actually behave once they are appointed. We've had some exceptionally talented technical people that have been appointed AD that haven't performed nearly as well as one might anticipate. Since, this is also the exact same situation faced by the Nomcom that I chaired and the issue was actually highlighted in my Nomcom report: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt It's not clear to me that the IESG every seriously considered the problem nor put a plan in place to avoid it in the future. I don't think anyone was surprised when Wes didn't re-up that it was going to be extremely difficult to find the right replacement. [/MB] The problem seems to be that folks value the technical expertise far more than they do project and people management skills. The end result is that there are some really strong technical people in leadership roles that have little ability to manage things well and very poor people interaction skills. The latter is certainly a very negative personality trait when it comes to motivating and managing volunteers. [/MB] That happens from time to time, let's agree. And maybe it is the price we pay for the model we have. And maybe that's a trade-off worth having. This is not to say that the IESG shouldn't evolve its working methods, by the way. But it is possible to get it wrong. Eliot
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
And, I continue to support Sam's position as well. To me the question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise that his being sought than to leave the position unfilled. Having dealt with the exact same issue when I was Nomcom chair, I thoroughly understand the issue at hand. And, certainly, there was a lot of criticism of the choice of the Nomcom I chaired, but we really are between a rock and a hard place yet again. Regards, Mary. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote: Eliot == Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com writes: Eliot Sam, Eliot On 3/4/13 6:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: Eliot We're here because of the extremely specialized nature of Eliot transport. PhDs who specialize in it have gotten it wrong. Eliot One such person drove Van Jacobson into the field, as I Eliot recall. There are very few people who get it right. And yet Eliot it's so close to the waist of the hour glass that it's Eliot critical to get right. Security has a lot of visibility and Eliot so it will never have this very same problem. I absolutely agree that there are few people who can design certain aspects of transport protocols. (I'll note that security has this problem too: designing crypto is really hard; I wouldn't be too quick to be sure that transport is so much more difficult than the hardest problems of other areas.) Fortunately, an AD need not do all the work in their area; they only need to review it. The entire IETF is founded on the idea of consensus. Central to that is the idea that we can get together as a group and by doing so we'll come up with better specifications. Not every person will be able to design the inputs to that process: new proposals and discoveries of problems in existing proposals. Some aspects of that really do require expert knowledge. my claim is that the AD skill set should be focused around evaluating these inputs, coming up with an opinion, and explaining that opinion to others. I don't believe that reviewing internet-drafts in transport, reviewing reviews of thoes drafts, evaluating whether enough review has happened, making an informed opinion about issues that were raised and explaining that opinion to the community requires the same level of expertise in transport as designing TCP. It does require significant experience, both technical and management. I stand behind my original comments.
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes: Mary And, I continue to support Sam's position as well. To me the Mary question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the Mary position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise Mary that his being sought than to leave the position unfilled. Mary Having dealt with the exact same issue when I was Nomcom Mary chair, I thoroughly understand the issue at hand. And, Mary certainly, there was a lot of criticism of the choice of the Mary Nomcom I chaired, but we really are between a rock and a hard Mary place yet again. I think it would be really useful to get someone like Lars or the chair of the tcpm working group to comment on how much congestion control experience we're talking about as a requirement. When I read Lars's messages, I'm not actually sure he and I are disagreeing. There's a lot of things it could mean for the IESG to have congestion control expertise.
Nomcom Reports
As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010): http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt I have a general question for the community as to whether they find such reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom chairs to produce these? While this is not listed as a requirement in RFC 3777, I had understood as chair that this was a requirement for the job, but again, I've not seen that carried on. Personally, I don't find a few .ppt charts adequate in terms of summarizing the outcome of such an important IETF process. The Nomcom gains a unique insight into the operation of the IETF (and its leadership) that no one else gets. I will note that of the 4 issues that I raised in the report, there are 2 that remain critical IMHO: - Section 7.1 Diversity. Out of the leaders across the IAOC, IAB and IESG, there is one individual from Asia and one female (both on the IAB). - Section 7.3. Expertise. Of course, this is directly related to the long thread of discussion underway with regards to filling the Transport AD position - i.e., it's the exact same situation faced by the 2009-2010 Nomcom. The other two issues are of course, important, but didn't appear to be such an issue for this year's Nomcom. Regards, Mary.
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes: Russ Sam: So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the AD joins the IESG. Russ We mostly agree. We both agree that strong technical Russ contribution is an important aspect of the qualification. Russ However, I believe that some basic clue in the Area is needed. Russ Could you image serving with a Security Co-AD that could not Russ explain how cryptography could be used for authentication? Russ, we both served with someone who joined the IESG with gaps this big (not security). It worked out OK, although it was quite rough for the person involved and for the co-ad. I also have some experience helping people learn about security. I do think I can imagine serving with someone like that, yes; it's frightening. While I think I have an existence proof that it can work with big gaps like that, no it would not be my choice to serve with someone who had those gaps. To use security examples we're both familiar with, my claim is that there are a lot of people outside the security area who have used security technologies and who could explain for example how cryptographic authentication works. There are a lot of people running around RAI with a fair bit of security clue. Some of those people might have enough implementation or other experience to understand significant details of a couple of security protocols. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those folks had the skills to know when additional review was required and to learn fast enough that it would work out for them to be security ADs. (Now why they'd want to do that to themselves is another story entirely:-) No, I don't think you can drop someone who is unfamiliar with an area into an AD job. I do think you can potentially throw someone into an AD job who has broad IETF experience and who has some familiarity with the area in question. I am having a hard time characterizing how much experience is needed, but I think it's a lot lower than world expert, but very much higher than couldn't follow important discussions in the area.
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it? Margaret On Mar 4, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote: Mary == Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com writes: Mary And, I continue to support Sam's position as well. To me the Mary question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the Mary position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise Mary that his being sought than to leave the position unfilled. Mary Having dealt with the exact same issue when I was Nomcom Mary chair, I thoroughly understand the issue at hand. And, Mary certainly, there was a lot of criticism of the choice of the Mary Nomcom I chaired, but we really are between a rock and a hard Mary place yet again. I think it would be really useful to get someone like Lars or the chair of the tcpm working group to comment on how much congestion control experience we're talking about as a requirement. When I read Lars's messages, I'm not actually sure he and I are disagreeing. There's a lot of things it could mean for the IESG to have congestion control expertise.
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last week during the weekend. Sprinklers came on. If my computer had either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water (luckily neither happened) the draft would have been lost. I still fail to see why the solution is to ban *submissions*. It seems like a better solution is one of visibility for those who need to triage. -=R On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Ned, On 27/02/2013 19:21, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: On 02/27/2013 01:49 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Feb 27, 2013, at 19:18, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: routing around obstacles It turns out for most people the easiest route around is submitting in time. That is actually what counts here: how does the rule influence the behavior of people. Chair hat: WORKSFORME. (And, if I could decide it, WONTFIX.) +1. As far as I can tell, the deadline actually serves the purpose of getting people to focus on IETF and update their documents sufficiently prior to the meeting, that it's reasonable to expect meeting participants to read the drafts that they intend to discuss. And I say this as someone who, as an author, has often found the deadline to be very inconvenient. And your evidence for this is .. what exactly? Yes, the deadline makes the drafts show up a bit sooner, but I rather suspect that the overwhelming majority of people don't bother to do much reading in the inverval. I certainly don't. Just to present another view, I certainly do. I agree that this is more important for -00 drafts, and that looking at the diffs *may* be sufficient for updated drafts. However, with hundreds of documents coming down the pipe shortly before the meeting, I firmly believe that the two deadlines are essential in order to achieve any kind of systematic triage and decide what needs careful reading. I think many of us have a wide range of interests that make this triage important. Brian
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Margaret: The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it? If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious. It is not that simple. This is not the first time we have experienced difficulty in filling the Transport AD seat. Frankly, since RAI was extracted from Transport this has been a recurring concern. At various points over the last three years, there have been discussions about reorganization. That topic has come up on this thread already. So, the community is faced with two choices: (1) fill the seat with someone with limited knowledge of congestion control, but adequate time commitment to do the job; or (2) reorganize the areas in some fashion. Russ
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 3/4/2013 1:48 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it? Carefully considering the tradeoffs and requirements seems to be the corre challenge here. To extend this point further: We've defined job requirements that produce an extremely small pool of candidates. In the case of TSV, the pool is zero, but in others it is also problematic. This is a long-standing problem, but we keep ignoring it. Rather than carefully consider the essential job requirements -- in terms of the core work that must be done by an AD -- we seem to think that we can continue with unchanged job requirements. ADs do not 'lead' the work of their area. They do not initiate the work, produce the charters or write the specifications. Work that fails or succeeds does so because it has community consensus and demand, not because an AD was diligent or clever. The job of an AD is to facilitate community efforts, not to direct them. Technical expertise in a technical manager is essential as an adjunct to the management. We keep confusing this essential requirement with the kind of work that an individual contributor does. As long as we maintain that confusion, we will define a job that is too demanding, and demands too many of the wrong skills. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Nomcom Reports
Hi Mary, At 12:31 04-03-2013, Mary Barnes wrote: I have a general question for the community as to whether they find such reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom chairs to produce these? While this is not listed as a requirement in I found your report useful. I will note that of the 4 issues that I raised in the report, there are 2 that remain critical IMHO: - Section 7.1 Diversity. Out of the leaders across the IAOC, IAB and IESG, there is one individual from Asia and one female (both on the IAB). There was an attempt to provide a path for female IETF participants. There wasn't any significant response. The message from Michael StJohns might be related to diversity ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77449.html ). - Section 7.3. Expertise. Of course, this is directly related to the long thread of discussion underway with regards to filling the Transport AD position - i.e., it's the exact same situation faced by the 2009-2010 Nomcom. It can take years to get the expertise and there's no guarantee of success. Regards, -sm
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: Margaret: The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it? If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious. It is not that simple. This is not the first time we have experienced difficulty in filling the Transport AD seat. Frankly, since RAI was extracted from Transport this has been a recurring concern. At various points over the last three years, there have been discussions about reorganization. That topic has come up on this thread already. So, the community is faced with two choices: (1) fill the seat with someone with limited knowledge of congestion control, but adequate time commitment to do the job; or (2) reorganize the areas in some fashion. [MB] Can you expand on this reorganization? This wasn't explicitly stated in your original email. How would this make up for not having someone with Congestion Control expertise, which seemed to be the core issue that has been discussed on this thread? Note, I'm not debating there might be other value in the reorganization, I'm just puzzled as to how it solves this specific problem. [/MB] Russ
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Hi, Russ, Was there something causative about extracting RAI from Transport? Allison On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: Margaret: The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it? If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious. It is not that simple. This is not the first time we have experienced difficulty in filling the Transport AD seat. Frankly, since RAI was extracted from Transport this has been a recurring concern. At various points over the last three years, there have been discussions about reorganization. That topic has come up on this thread already. So, the community is faced with two choices: (1) fill the seat with someone with limited knowledge of congestion control, but adequate time commitment to do the job; or (2) reorganize the areas in some fashion. Russ
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? There is an obvious place to look for ideas: the directorates. See: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html That would help if the AD job would not be a full time job. Sure. And I see some suggestions in this email thread to rely more on the directorates. That makes sense (but reviews vary greatly, however) One track not mentioned in this thread is the document shepherd. The document shepherd job, when done according to RFC 4858 (see specifically section 3.2 and 3.3) would save a huge amount of time to the AD. Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrr trying to track all the open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the authors. On top of taking some time, I had to be become expert for every single aspect of the specification to evaluate whether the answer was right... while the document shepherd has already the expertise. We should probably stress (again) the importance of document shepherd function... Regards, Benoit
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the role has grown over the years. Alia On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote: On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? There is an obvious place to look for ideas: the directorates. See: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html That would help if the AD job would not be a full time job. Sure. And I see some suggestions in this email thread to rely more on the directorates. That makes sense (but reviews vary greatly, however) One track not mentioned in this thread is the document shepherd. The document shepherd job, when done according to RFC 4858 (see specifically section 3.2 and 3.3) would save a huge amount of time to the AD. Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrr trying to track all the open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the authors. On top of taking some time, I had to be become expert for every single aspect of the specification to evaluate whether the answer was right... while the document shepherd has already the expertise. We should probably stress (again) the importance of document shepherd function... Regards, Benoit
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Considering that mainly WG chairs are document shepherds (*), that would be a good start. (*) but this is absolutely not a requirement. See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/document-shepherds.html Regards, Benoit Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the role has grown over the years. Alia On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote: On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. what is the fix? There is an obvious place to look for ideas: the directorates. See: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html That would help if the AD job would not be a full time job. Sure. And I see some suggestions in this email thread to rely more on the directorates. That makes sense (but reviews vary greatly, however) One track not mentioned in this thread is the document shepherd. The document shepherd job, when done according to RFC 4858 (see specifically section 3.2 and 3.3) would save a huge amount of time to the AD. Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrr trying to track all the open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the authors. On top of taking some time, I had to be become expert for every single aspect of the specification to evaluate whether the answer was right... while the document shepherd has already the expertise. We should probably stress (again) the importance of document shepherd function... Regards, Benoit
Re: Call for Comment: RFC Format Requirements and Future Development
John Levine wrote: [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] There should be an immutable requirement that any alternative format MUST NOT increase the size by more than a factor of two compared to ASCII text. So you're saying you're unalterably opposed to the RFC editor providing PDF, HTML, epub, mobipocket, and every other format that people actually use on modern computers, as well as anything that includes reasonably legible images? I agree that a strict size limitation would interfere badly with formats that include graphics. But that doesn't mean that all graphics are equal. I'm aware of one notoriously stupid Office suite that inserts truecolor BMP images by default, and it is actually difficult to conceive a worse default behaviour... If that's not what you mean, what DO you mean? We all seem to agree that we want to continue to provide the traditional line printer image format, but on today's Internet where 20Mb/sec cable modems aren't particularly fast, it's silly to demand that documents be sized for floppy disks. While there might be cable modems with 20Mb/sec available to some, this is far from being the common internet access bandwidth. My 6MBit/s DSL subscription at home comes out as ~2MBit/s. It used to be close to 4MBit/s in early 2008, but there seems to have been a rush in subscriptions over the past few years that impairs what I get. I only get ~ 5-10 MBit/s net from my WLAN (8 neighboring WLANs competing). For mobile devices, unless you're willing to pay a premium monthly fee, the commonly available bandwidth seems to be more like 384kBit/s. On my last vacation in Italy, the hotel offered a public WLAN (no registration required), but the bandwidth was averaging around 300 KBit/s. Limiting the waste of network bandwidth seems like a desirable goal, no matter how I look at it, from the waiting for download perspective as well as the environmental impact. -Martin
Re: Nomcom Reports
On 3/4/2013 2:31 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010): http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt I have a general question for the community as to whether they find such reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom chairs to produce these? While this is not listed as a requirement in RFC 3777, I had understood as chair that this was a requirement for the job, but again, I've not seen that carried on. Personally, I don't find a few .ppt charts adequate in terms of summarizing the outcome of such an important IETF process. The Nomcom gains a unique insight into the operation of the IETF (and its leadership) that no one else gets. Mary, I found your report useful, especially when I served as the IAB liaison to the Nomcom the following year. I would like to see reports like yours in the future. Spencer I will note that of the 4 issues that I raised in the report, there are 2 that remain critical IMHO: - Section 7.1 Diversity. Out of the leaders across the IAOC, IAB and IESG, there is one individual from Asia and one female (both on the IAB). - Section 7.3. Expertise. Of course, this is directly related to the long thread of discussion underway with regards to filling the Transport AD position - i.e., it's the exact same situation faced by the 2009-2010 Nomcom. The other two issues are of course, important, but didn't appear to be such an issue for this year's Nomcom. Regards, Mary.
Re: Call for Comment: RFC Format Requirements and Future Development
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:48:53AM +0100, Martin Rex wrote: Limiting the waste of network bandwidth seems like a desirable goal, no matter how I look at it, from the waiting for download perspective as well as the environmental impact. All that requires is the availability of a small file, not an overall limitation on the size of files. No? A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)
Bob Braden wrote: On 3/4/2013 10:20 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: I'll ask a rather basic question and hope someone will answer in an educational way - Why is congestion control so important? And where does it apply? ... :-) Ouch. Because without it (as we learned the hard way in the late 1980s) \ the Internet may collapse and provide essentially no service. It is PR like this one: http://www.fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2013/20130129-02.html That gets me worried about folks might try to fix the internet mostly due to the fact that they really haven't understood what is already there any why. -Martin
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last week during the weekend. Sprinklers came on. If my computer had either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water (luckily neither happened) the draft would have been lost. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRNUTaAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pOFUP+wVEi8afThphqWQbv1yU6hcf W+ZcBao62aUue+Kek86kbfGaEaxmwLqwltJPReJQb8lTUIYcNPu0Fu1eZ9zEcbsX 6Zq1TEyPxCc+9BjytU2c5ZOOaA6jdGDDK57/rY8Rnx92w7W4ads2dY9wgDXSwiUt sXL6WpIhRDD2MDWVzmu7dDP5FzrlzQtk4xdZo4vJRk5LXVpVVCUKerHYXquuCdj/ 1xWMHXNGfVP2rCymfgcSiwOGjOBKzzfyQ5j2YXK/Fj9uEFjIkIaECYPFEeRH64qJ i1wbPqbMpJeoMzE82me0Ba1lDwiH93W4eUXUqBEIGsZ0WgoaNhYs/PqMikMGVk77 aZ2fKwCNNt0GmjmKf3MaRCwSAoaIfHqjFkxEhasOIz4u4kB2Gdq0JVjRSVH/sX09 CXrFt9as1z7NxF7nvQkTK1pFDxOZiKcDkNUfiOX47C372QjXITfyqA5Tcy0AR8ZM 7TRcf0lKBnl84XHEAXDeFfv9mFC8W2ozM3OtJVTBsM1rXVLsPs7hei1HHspytRUB WmrDI3C49OIOT4xSMG12rQ1G66WC0KPckzLmxsJbEwryW6gx1hQMz0reeRDticID LAdNHAn4CJv3+fEQcAqpk8EI204vdhXLaKIgsZk+XiB+ktK9TYmapC2LUzJmDSYq xT1G6WR9Mynm3TixX0nS =1HLF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
On 3/4/2013 3:07 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: There are qualified people in the industry, and that's where most of the past ADs have come from. In the last few years, it's been increasingly harder to get them to step forward, because their employers are reluctant to let them spend the time. I actually think that this is because employers realize that these skills are important and rare to find, and so you want these guys to work on internal things and not donate them to the IETF. When the TSV ADs asked the directorate about this topic, one of the things we heard is that transport features don't strongly associate with product lines or features. So there may also be a case where management doesn't identify with the value in TSV, and maybe companies aren't internally developing people as much for TSV expertise as for other topics. Also, sponsoring an AD does not seem to be generally feasible for small companies or services-based companies (compared to product- based companies) without some outside support, since otherwise the hours spent ADing are overhead. This further limits the pool. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :) -=R On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last week during the weekend. Sprinklers came on. If my computer had either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water (luckily neither happened) the draft would have been lost. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRNUTaAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pOFUP+wVEi8afThphqWQbv1yU6hcf W+ZcBao62aUue+Kek86kbfGaEaxmwLqwltJPReJQb8lTUIYcNPu0Fu1eZ9zEcbsX 6Zq1TEyPxCc+9BjytU2c5ZOOaA6jdGDDK57/rY8Rnx92w7W4ads2dY9wgDXSwiUt sXL6WpIhRDD2MDWVzmu7dDP5FzrlzQtk4xdZo4vJRk5LXVpVVCUKerHYXquuCdj/ 1xWMHXNGfVP2rCymfgcSiwOGjOBKzzfyQ5j2YXK/Fj9uEFjIkIaECYPFEeRH64qJ i1wbPqbMpJeoMzE82me0Ba1lDwiH93W4eUXUqBEIGsZ0WgoaNhYs/PqMikMGVk77 aZ2fKwCNNt0GmjmKf3MaRCwSAoaIfHqjFkxEhasOIz4u4kB2Gdq0JVjRSVH/sX09 CXrFt9as1z7NxF7nvQkTK1pFDxOZiKcDkNUfiOX47C372QjXITfyqA5Tcy0AR8ZM 7TRcf0lKBnl84XHEAXDeFfv9mFC8W2ozM3OtJVTBsM1rXVLsPs7hei1HHspytRUB WmrDI3C49OIOT4xSMG12rQ1G66WC0KPckzLmxsJbEwryW6gx1hQMz0reeRDticID LAdNHAn4CJv3+fEQcAqpk8EI204vdhXLaKIgsZk+XiB+ktK9TYmapC2LUzJmDSYq xT1G6WR9Mynm3TixX0nS =1HLF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Roberto Peon wrote: I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :) Source control, assuming the traditional server implementation, is one form of backup solution ... but I agree, the requirement is a backup solution where the backup is protected from the hazards the individual computer would be subjected to. Draft submission is hardly the best way to protect work. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last week during the weekend. Sprinklers came on. If my computer had either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water (luckily neither happened) the draft would have been lost. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-)
Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Mary: The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between limited knowledge of congestion control and an empty seat. Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it? If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious. It is not that simple. This is not the first time we have experienced difficulty in filling the Transport AD seat. Frankly, since RAI was extracted from Transport this has been a recurring concern. At various points over the last three years, there have been discussions about reorganization. That topic has come up on this thread already. So, the community is faced with two choices: (1) fill the seat with someone with limited knowledge of congestion control, but adequate time commitment to do the job; or (2) reorganize the areas in some fashion. [MB] Can you expand on this reorganization? This wasn't explicitly stated in your original email. How would this make up for not having someone with Congestion Control expertise, which seemed to be the core issue that has been discussed on this thread? Note, I'm not debating there might be other value in the reorganization, I'm just puzzled as to how it solves this specific problem. [/MB] The original email point to the requirements for the positions that NomCom is to fill. A reorganization could change the positions or change the requirements. Russ
Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
No disagreement. It is merely *a* way, and, popping back to the original topic, it is better to allow the submission and deny the visibility than to disallow the submission -=R On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote: On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Roberto Peon wrote: I think you mean backup solution, source control won't help on its own :) Source control, assuming the traditional server implementation, is one form of backup solution ... but I agree, the requirement is a backup solution where the backup is protected from the hazards the individual computer would be subjected to. Draft submission is hardly the best way to protect work. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/4/13 2:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: There was a fire in the office, three desks away from mine last week during the weekend. Sprinklers came on. If my computer had either caught fire, or been exposed to too much water (luckily neither happened) the draft would have been lost. Nothing is stopping you from using source control. :-)
Re: congestion control? - (was Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director)
On Mar 4, 2013, at 19:44, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: The Transport Area has all of the groups that deal with transport protocols that need to do congestion control. Further, the (current) split of work means that all of the groups that need congestion oversight would be cared for by the position that is currently becoming empty as Wes leaves. Also, other areas frequently build protocols that need review from a congestion control perspective (do they back of under loss, can they even detect loss, etc.) Inside the area, there is typically enough CC clue applied by the TSV community as a whole. It's outside the area where the TSV AD as a person gets involved a lot. Lars
Re: Nomcom Reports
Regards Brian Carpenter On 04/03/2013 20:31, Mary Barnes wrote: As far as I can tell, the last official Nomcom report was from the Nomcom I chaired (2009-2010): http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt In fairness, there were reports to plenary, although short on details: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-iesg-9-ietf-operations-and-administration-plenary.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/plenaryw-9.pdf I have a general question for the community as to whether they find such reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom chairs to produce these? Yes, I think so. It helps to keep the process healthy. Brian
IETF 86 - Registration Cancellation Reminder
NOTICE: Daylight Savings Time begins in the United States on Sunday, March 10, please remember to set your clocks ahead one hour! 86th IETF Meeting Orlando, FL, USA March 10-15, 2013 Host: Comcast and NBCUniversal Meeting venue: Caribe Royale http://www.cariberoyale.com Register online at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/86/ 1. Registration A. After Early-Bird cutoff (March 1, 2013) - USD 800.00 B. Full-time Student Registrations - USD 150.00 (with proper ID) C. One Day Pass Registration - USD 350.00 D. Registration Cancellation Cut-off for registration cancellation is Monday, 4 March 2013 at UTC 24:00. Cancellations are subject to a 10% (ten percent) cancellation fee if requested by this date and time. E. Online Registration and Payment ends Friday, 8 March 2013, 1700 local Orlando time. F. On-site Registration starting Sunday, 10 March 2013 at 11:00 local Orlando time.
Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-07.txt (Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets' draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-07.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-03-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes routing packets destined to IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses across an IPv6 core using OSPFv3 with a separate routing table. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Protocol Action: 'MPLS-TP Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-08.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'MPLS-TP Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions' (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-08.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers/ Technical Summary This document augments the initial set of identifiers to be used in the Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP) defined in RFC6370. RFC6370 defines a set of MPLS-TP transport and management entity identifiers to support bidirectional (co-routed and associated) point-to-point MPLS-TP LSPs, including PWs and Sections which follow the IP/MPLS conventions. This document specifies an alternative way to uniquely identify an operator/service provider based on ITU-T conventions, and specifies how this operator/service provider identifier can be used to make the existing set of MPLS-TP transport and management entity identifiers, defined by RFC6370, globally unique. This document solely defines those identifiers. Their use and possible protocols extensions to carry them is out of scope in this document. Working Group Summary: When we started the MPLS-TP project, it was generally understood that the IETF protocols would be the protocols to be extended and built upon. Backwards compatibility and one single MPLS technology, among other things were considered important. However, it was also agreed that MPLS-TP should be possible to run in networks that do not natively include IP routing and IP addressing. This doucment specifies a set of identifiers for such networks. While the working group has never taken a strong interest in this document, there has also been a general agreement that the ITU-T identifiers need to be specified as part of the MPLS-TP project. Document Quality: We do not know any implementations of this draft. Personnel: Loa Andersson (l...@pi.nu) is the document shepherd. Adrian Farrel (adr...@olddog.co.uk) is the responsible AD. RFC Editor Note Section 8 s/describe use/describe the use/
Document Action: 'Brainpool Elliptic Curves for the IKE Group Description Registry' to Informational RFC (draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-04.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Brainpool Elliptic Curves for the IKE Group Description Registry' (draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-04.txt) as Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Sean Turner. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups/ Technical Summary The draft allocates code points for four new elliptic curve domain parameter sets (ECC Brainpool curves from RFC 5639) over finite prime fields into a registry that was established by the IKEv1 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipsec-registry) but is used by other protocols (IEEE 802.11aa, IEEE 802.11s, RFC 5931). Working Group Summary The draft was discussed quite controversially on the WG mailing list. There are persons in the WG that strongly feel that no further code points should be defined for IKEv1 because the protocol has been deprecated long ago (by RFC 4306). Other persons in the WG argued that IKEv1 is still widely used in practice and, furthermore, other code points have been assigned previously to the same name space after IKEv1 was obsoleted. No consensus could be achieved on this topic. On the other hand, the ADs received an informal liaison statement from IEEE 802.11 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1181/) requesting code point assignments for these curves in the IKEv1 registry. IEEE standards 802.11aa and 802.11s are using this name space of the IKEv1 registry, and these specs are apparently not up for change until 2015. The matter was discussed at the SAAG meeting among the ADs and the WG members present and it was decided to publish an internet-draft that requests these code points but also requires IANA to add a note that they are not for IKEv1. In the WG discussion following its publication, concerns were uttered that the note won't be enough to stop people asking for IKEv1 products to support these new code points and to prevent implementers to use them for IKEv1. On the other hand, it was expressed that requiring the IEEE specs to point to another (new) registry is probably not possible due to their publishing cycle. Alternative solutions were discussed, e.g. to include in the registry only a link pointing to another registry where the actual values are listed. Eventually, the approach of the draft, i.e. to include a note not for IKE in the registry, was widely considered the best way forward. After some comments on earlier versions, an announcement of a revised draft on the ipsecme mailing list did not result in any further comments. There was agreement that the draft shall not be a WG document. Document Quality Some specific comments of Tim Polk were accommodated in a revision. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Johannes Merkle, the sponsoring AD is Sean Turner.
Last Call: draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-10.txt (WebFinger) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: - 'WebFinger' draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-10.txt as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-03-18. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification defines the WebFinger protocol, which can be used to discover information about people or other entities on the Internet using standard HTTP methods. WebFinger discovers information for a URI that might not be usable as a locator otherwise, such as account or email URIs. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Protocol Action: 'Flow Identity Extension for HELD' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-02.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Flow Identity Extension for HELD' (draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-02.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Geographic Location/Privacy Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Robert Sparks and Gonzalo Camarillo. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity/ Technical Summary: This document specifies an extension to the HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) Protocol to allow a location of an endpoint behind certain kinds of NAT to be requested. Working Group Summary: This document is a simple extension to an existing protocol and was uncontroversial in the working group. Document Quality: This document received thorough review in the working group. National standards bodies plan to refer to this extension, and providers of Location Information Servers may choose to implement it depending on their user bases. Personnel: Alissa Cooper is the Document Shepherd. Robert Sparks is the Responsible Area Director.
