Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Soininen == Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Soininen Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't Soininen remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom Soininen rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't notice Soininen them). I think this is a very good overview of the Soininen requirements needed for the IESG positions and gives a Soininen nice background to think about the people who would fit Soininen the positions. Soininen However, I think one of the areas is described a bit too Soininen much in detail and perhaps give a wrong impression about Soininen the job. The following extract is from the Security Soininen Area: Specific expertise required for a Security AD includes strong knowledge of IETF security protocols. To complement Tim Polk, the person selected as Security AD should have a working understanding of Kerberos, GSS-API, SASL, and how these relate to security protocols and to their use in applications and other security protocols. A basic understanding of IPsec, IKE, TLS, PKI would also be useful. Soininen I'm sure this is an oversight, but I think it is Soininen generally not according the IETF process to specific Soininen technologies and hard coding the division of work in Soininen an area. To my understanding, the Ads in an area are Soininen free to divide the work between themselves as they wish Soininen according their strengths. So, if the a possible new Soininen security AD would not be interested to look at these Soininen technologies, perhaps Tim would look at them - according Soininen the new division of work in the area. I tend to agree that this is not an ideal practice, but it has been going on for many years. The set of technologies listed there are things that I'm mostly doing these days with particular emphasis on things Tim doesn't have as much experience with. Last year, the description focused on areas Russ had the most experience in. It's kind of complicated to fix. If you stuck two security ads in with my experience or with Tim's experience it would not be ideal. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Done. At 06:29 PM 7/23/2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Also these descriptions have evolved from year to year (there is a version in the IESG wiki too, at http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/AreasDescription, maybe the IESG should bring it up to date...) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Some additional comments on the topic: In particular, taking the security area requirements as an example, the description provided talks about expertise needed based on the current ongoing work in the security area. While this is one part, we want ADs that can bring in/ evaluate new work which may or may not be related to any of the ongoing work in the area. Especially in the security area, such relation to other work is very hard to predict. Personally, I don't think it is a requirement for an AD to have a deep understanding of all the protocols produced by the area; rather, for the security area, for example, I think it is important that the ADs are capable of analyzing threat models and evaulating the security implications of work happening in other areas, or have a sufficient security background to grasp issues raised by experts of a certain protocol, etc. I think it is much less important that the AD has a top-to-bottom understanding of TLS or Kerberos or IKEv2 or any one thing in particular. I provided this input last year as well and I think it is very important for us to select an area generalist as an AD over a specialist in a particular set of protocols. Vidya ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
One important thing needs to be considered in the Security and OM Areas. There are two ADs, and they are expected to have somewhat different skill sets. For contrast, here are the requirements that were provided to NomCom2006 for these positions. Russ --- Operations Management Area: The primary technical areas covered by the Operations Management area include: Network Management, AAA, and various operational issues facing the Internet such as DNS operations, IPv6 operations, Routing operations. Unlike most IETF areas, the Operations Management area is logically divided into two separate functions: Network Management and Operations. David Kessens is currently responsible for the Operations portion of the OPS area, so specific expertise required for the open position would include a strong understanding of Internet operations, as well as the ability to step into Network Management issues when necessary. The Operations AD is largely responsible for soliciting operator feedback and input regarding IETF work. This is a challenging task that requires strong contacts in the operations community and a great deal of persistence. Another important role of the Operations AD is to identify potential or actual operational issues regarding IETF protocols and documents in all areas, and to work with the other areas to resolve those issues. This requires a strong understanding of how new and updated protocols may affect operations, and the ability to gather information from the operations community and translate that information into suggestions for protocol architecture and design within the IETF. It also requires a strong cross-area understanding of IETF protocol architecture and technologies. The Operations portion of the OPS area intersects most often with the Routing, Internet and Security areas. So, cross-area expertise in any of those areas would be particularly useful. --- Security Area: The WGs within the Security Area are primarily focused on security protocols. They provide one or more of the security services: integrity, authentication, non-repudiation, confidentiality, and access control. Since many of the security mechanisms needed to provide these security services are cryptographic, key management is also vital. Security ADs are expected to ensure that all IETF specifications are reviewed for adequate security coverage. They also manage a set of security resources that are available to most IETF areas and WGs. Specific expertise required for a Security AD would include a strong knowledge of IETF security protocols, particularly IPsec, IKE, and TLS, and a good working knowledge of security protocols and mechanisms that have been developed inside and outside the IETF, most notably including PKI. Also, a Security AD should understand how to weigh the security requirements of a protocol against operational and implementation requirements. We must be pragmatic; otherwise people will not implement and deploy the secure protocols that the IETF standardizes. The Security Area intersects with all other IETF areas, and its ADs are expected to read and understand the security implications of documents in all areas. So, broad knowledge of IETF technologies and the ability to assimilate new information quickly are imperative for a Security AD. At 02:44 PM 7/24/2007, Narayanan, Vidya wrote: Some additional comments on the topic: In particular, taking the security area requirements as an example, the description provided talks about expertise needed based on the current ongoing work in the security area. While this is one part, we want ADs that can bring in/ evaluate new work which may or may not be related to any of the ongoing work in the area. Especially in the security area, such relation to other work is very hard to predict. Personally, I don't think it is a requirement for an AD to have a deep understanding of all the protocols produced by the area; rather, for the security area, for example, I think it is important that the ADs are capable of analyzing threat models and evaulating the security implications of work happening in other areas, or have a sufficient security background to grasp issues raised by experts of a certain protocol, etc. I think it is much less important that the AD has a top-to-bottom understanding of TLS or Kerberos or IKEv2 or any one thing in particular. I provided this input last year as well and I think it is very important for us to select an area generalist as an AD over a specialist in a particular set of protocols. Vidya ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Sam, Jonne, Its important to find the right balance between getting someone who fits exactly the current situation and getting someone who is the best candidate in a more long term view. The ADs in an area need to have an excellent understanding of the technology the area deals with. Typically, no one covers everything that we work in an area, so you end up wanting to have a pair that complements each other. Having said that, when a new BOF proposal comes in, you may learn that you suddenly need some new expertise. We also don't know how long the other AD in the pair continues to be in that position. Typically at least a year (given the cycles are on alternating years), but resignations and movements to other positions have been known to happen. And the two ADs can change how they divide the area between themselves. And there are different approaches to managing an area. Generalist vs. specialist, for instance. And you can use experts, directorates, etc. to help you in topics that you are not sufficiently good expert in. (I also thought that the SEC requirements were a bit too specific this year.) Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Jari == Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jari (I also thought that the SEC requirements were a bit too Jari specific this year.) They are no more specific this year than they have been in the past. The only change is that they were at least specific in a direction that would actually compliment the sitting AD. I personally have never liked the way the security AD requirements were stated. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Sam, They are no more specific this year than they have been in the past. Ok -- I did not re-read the ones from past years. Just reacting on the current text. The only change is that they were at least specific in a direction that would actually compliment the sitting AD. That's fine. I personally have never liked the way the security AD requirements were stated. Hmm. Ok. Perhaps we should consider stating them in a better way then? Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Hi, I agree with Vidya. To be honest, I really thought this was an oversight and not intentional. If the Security area has a similar split as the OM area, I think this really should be discussed. To my understanding, we don't have such split documented to any other area and I think this kind of hard split should be discussed. Perhaps the split is right and I just wasn't aware of it. However, it seems other people were unaware of the split as well. BTW, are the explicit technologies Kerberos, GSS-API, and SASL representing the other half of the area. I'm asking, because I'm not a security expert and not active in the security area. Cheers, Jonne. On 7/25/07 1:12 AM, ext Narayanan, Vidya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought the requirements were too specific for the SEC area last year as well :) I do realize that the text has been largely reused from last year, but, I think we need to revisit some of these specific descriptions. We cannot expect the Nomcom to be familiar enough with all areas to use their judgment in addition to the requirements received. I think we need to get better at providing the requirements so that the Nomcom will really know what they are looking for in candidates. At the moment, I really think the SEC area requirements are misleading to the Nomcom and can use a revision. Vidya -Original Message- From: Russ Housley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:01 PM To: Narayanan, Vidya Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Requirements for Open IESG Positions One important thing needs to be considered in the Security and OM Areas. There are two ADs, and they are expected to have somewhat different skill sets. For contrast, here are the requirements that were provided to NomCom2006 for these positions. Russ --- Operations Management Area: The primary technical areas covered by the Operations Management area include: Network Management, AAA, and various operational issues facing the Internet such as DNS operations, IPv6 operations, Routing operations. Unlike most IETF areas, the Operations Management area is logically divided into two separate functions: Network Management and Operations. David Kessens is currently responsible for the Operations portion of the OPS area, so specific expertise required for the open position would include a strong understanding of Internet operations, as well as the ability to step into Network Management issues when necessary. The Operations AD is largely responsible for soliciting operator feedback and input regarding IETF work. This is a challenging task that requires strong contacts in the operations community and a great deal of persistence. Another important role of the Operations AD is to identify potential or actual operational issues regarding IETF protocols and documents in all areas, and to work with the other areas to resolve those issues. This requires a strong understanding of how new and updated protocols may affect operations, and the ability to gather information from the operations community and translate that information into suggestions for protocol architecture and design within the IETF. It also requires a strong cross-area understanding of IETF protocol architecture and technologies. The Operations portion of the OPS area intersects most often with the Routing, Internet and Security areas. So, cross-area expertise in any of those areas would be particularly useful. --- Security Area: The WGs within the Security Area are primarily focused on security protocols. They provide one or more of the security services: integrity, authentication, non-repudiation, confidentiality, and access control. Since many of the security mechanisms needed to provide these security services are cryptographic, key management is also vital. Security ADs are expected to ensure that all IETF specifications are reviewed for adequate security coverage. They also manage a set of security resources that are available to most IETF areas and WGs. Specific expertise required for a Security AD would include a strong knowledge of IETF security protocols, particularly IPsec, IKE, and TLS, and a good working knowledge of security protocols and mechanisms that have been developed inside and outside the IETF, most notably including PKI. Also, a Security AD should understand how to weigh the security requirements of a protocol against operational and implementation requirements. We must be pragmatic; otherwise people will not implement and deploy the secure protocols that the IETF standardizes. The Security Area intersects with all other IETF areas, and its ADs are expected to read and understand the security implications of documents in all areas. So, broad knowledge of IETF technologies and the ability to assimilate new information
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't notice them). I think this is a very good overview of the requirements needed for the IESG positions and gives a nice background to think about the people who would fit the positions. However, I think one of the areas is described a bit too much in detail and perhaps give a wrong impression about the job. The following extract is from the Security Area: Specific expertise required for a Security AD includes strong knowledge of IETF security protocols. To complement Tim Polk, the person selected as Security AD should have a working understanding of Kerberos, GSS-API, SASL, and how these relate to security protocols and to their use in applications and other security protocols. A basic understanding of IPsec, IKE, TLS, PKI would also be useful. I'm sure this is an oversight, but I think it is generally not according the IETF process to specific technologies and hard coding the division of work in an area. To my understanding, the Ads in an area are free to divide the work between themselves as they wish according their strengths. So, if the a possible new security AD would not be interested to look at these technologies, perhaps Tim would look at them - according the new division of work in the area. In addition, I think it is a bit shaky to mention the current AD in this context even when the person is not up. Theoretically (I don't know if this has ever happened outside the creation of the RAI area), that AD could be moved to the IAB or another position in the IESG. So, it is not 100% sure that Tim would be continuing as the other security AD though probable. However, thanks for this clarification I think it is very useful. Cheers, Jonne. On 7/20/07 9:12 AM, ext Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RFC 3777 says the following about the qualifications required for open IESG/IAB positions: The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the expertise desired of the candidates selected for their respective open positions to the Executive Director. The summaries are provided to the nominating committee for its consideration. 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its respective candidates. The following is the information provided by the IESG to the nomcom. The nomcom is now accepting the community's input on the qualifications required for the open IESG positions. Please send your notes, either as commentary on the following or independent notes to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. best regards, Lakshminath This note describes the expertise desired in the candidates selected to fill the positions of the IESG members whose terms will expire during the first IETF Meeting in 2008. Under the Nominations Committee (NomCom) procedures defined in RFC 3777, the IESG is responsible for providing a summary of the expertise desired of the candidates selected for open IESG positions. This information is included below, and is suitable for publication to the community, along with the NomCom request for nominations. We realize that this is a long list of demanding qualifications, and that no one person will be able meet all of the requirements for a specific position. We trust that the NomCom will weigh all of these qualifications and choose IESG members who represent the best possible balance of these qualifications. GENERIC REQUIREMENTS IESG members are the managers of the IETF standards process. They they must understand the way the IETF works, be good at working with other people, be able to inspire and encourage other people to work together as volunteers, and have sound technical judgment about IETF technology and its relationship to technology developed elsewhere. Area Directors (ADs) select and directly manage the Working Group (WG) chairs, so IESG members should possess sufficient interpersonal and management skills to manage 15 to 30 part-time people. Most ADs are also responsible for one or more directorate or review teams. The ability to identify good leaders and technical experts, and then recruit them for IETF work is important. Having been a WG chair helps understand the WG chair role, and it will help when trying to resolve problems and issues that a WG chair may have. In addition, all IESG members should have strong technical expertise that crosses two or three IETF areas. Ideally, an IESG member would have made significant technical contributions in more than one IETF area, preferably authoring documents and/or chairing WGs in more than one area. (ADs are expected to personally review every Internet-Draft that they
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Jonne, On 2007-07-24 01:10, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't notice them). You didn't notice them :-) Also these descriptions have evolved from year to year (there is a version in the IESG wiki too, at http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/AreasDescription, maybe the IESG should bring it up to date...) I think this is a very good overview of the requirements needed for the IESG positions and gives a nice background to think about the people who would fit the positions. However, I think one of the areas is described a bit too much in detail and perhaps give a wrong impression about the job. The following extract is from the Security Area: Specific expertise required for a Security AD includes strong knowledge of IETF security protocols. To complement Tim Polk, the person selected as Security AD should have a working understanding of Kerberos, GSS-API, SASL, and how these relate to security protocols and to their use in applications and other security protocols. A basic understanding of IPsec, IKE, TLS, PKI would also be useful. I'm sure this is an oversight, but I think it is generally not according the IETF process to specific technologies and hard coding the division of work in an area. To my understanding, the Ads in an area are free to divide the work between themselves as they wish according their strengths. So, if the a possible new security AD would not be interested to look at these technologies, perhaps Tim would look at them - according the new division of work in the area. If you look at the description for the OM area you will also surely find it very specific to half the area. I think it's realistic to do this. I don't object to it. In addition, I think it is a bit shaky to mention the current AD in this context even when the person is not up. My personal taste would also be not to mention the co-AD by name. Theoretically (I don't know if this has ever happened outside the creation of the RAI area), that AD could be moved to the IAB or another position in the IESG. So, it is not 100% sure that Tim would be continuing as the other security AD though probable. True, but that would then invoke the mid-term replacement process for the person being moved - and it *has* happened. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirements for Open IESG Positions
Hi Brian, On 7/24/07 2:29 AM, ext Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonne, On 2007-07-24 01:10, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote: Hi, I just happened to read this mail today. I don't remember seeing such a mail during previous nomcom rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't notice them). You didn't notice them :-) Also these descriptions have evolved from year to year (there is a version in the IESG wiki too, at http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/AreasDescription, maybe the IESG should bring it up to date...) You mean there is e-mail in my inbox I haven't read? ;) I think this is a very good overview of the requirements needed for the IESG positions and gives a nice background to think about the people who would fit the positions. However, I think one of the areas is described a bit too much in detail and perhaps give a wrong impression about the job. The following extract is from the Security Area: Specific expertise required for a Security AD includes strong knowledge of IETF security protocols. To complement Tim Polk, the person selected as Security AD should have a working understanding of Kerberos, GSS-API, SASL, and how these relate to security protocols and to their use in applications and other security protocols. A basic understanding of IPsec, IKE, TLS, PKI would also be useful. I'm sure this is an oversight, but I think it is generally not according the IETF process to specific technologies and hard coding the division of work in an area. To my understanding, the Ads in an area are free to divide the work between themselves as they wish according their strengths. So, if the a possible new security AD would not be interested to look at these technologies, perhaps Tim would look at them - according the new division of work in the area. If you look at the description for the OM area you will also surely find it very specific to half the area. I think it's realistic to do this. I don't object to it. I think the OM area(s) is a bit different. Here there are three specific technologies mentioned whereas in OM area there are two quite different areas. There is perhaps not a such a clear division of task (like there isn't in other areas either). However, like I said this is most probably just an oversight. In addition, I think it is a bit shaky to mention the current AD in this context even when the person is not up. My personal taste would also be not to mention the co-AD by name. Theoretically (I don't know if this has ever happened outside the creation of the RAI area), that AD could be moved to the IAB or another position in the IESG. So, it is not 100% sure that Tim would be continuing as the other security AD though probable. True, but that would then invoke the mid-term replacement process for the person being moved - and it *has* happened. Cheers, Jonne. Brian -- Jonne Soininen Nokia Siemens Networks Tel: +358 40 527 46 34 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Requirements for Open IESG Positions
RFC 3777 says the following about the qualifications required for open IESG/IAB positions: The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the expertise desired of the candidates selected for their respective open positions to the Executive Director. The summaries are provided to the nominating committee for its consideration. 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its respective candidates. The following is the information provided by the IESG to the nomcom. The nomcom is now accepting the community's input on the qualifications required for the open IESG positions. Please send your notes, either as commentary on the following or independent notes to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. best regards, Lakshminath This note describes the expertise desired in the candidates selected to fill the positions of the IESG members whose terms will expire during the first IETF Meeting in 2008. Under the Nominations Committee (NomCom) procedures defined in RFC 3777, the IESG is responsible for providing a summary of the expertise desired of the candidates selected for open IESG positions. This information is included below, and is suitable for publication to the community, along with the NomCom request for nominations. We realize that this is a long list of demanding qualifications, and that no one person will be able meet all of the requirements for a specific position. We trust that the NomCom will weigh all of these qualifications and choose IESG members who represent the best possible balance of these qualifications. GENERIC REQUIREMENTS IESG members are the managers of the IETF standards process. They they must understand the way the IETF works, be good at working with other people, be able to inspire and encourage other people to work together as volunteers, and have sound technical judgment about IETF technology and its relationship to technology developed elsewhere. Area Directors (ADs) select and directly manage the Working Group (WG) chairs, so IESG members should possess sufficient interpersonal and management skills to manage 15 to 30 part-time people. Most ADs are also responsible for one or more directorate or review teams. The ability to identify good leaders and technical experts, and then recruit them for IETF work is important. Having been a WG chair helps understand the WG chair role, and it will help when trying to resolve problems and issues that a WG chair may have. In addition, all IESG members should have strong technical expertise that crosses two or three IETF areas. Ideally, an IESG member would have made significant technical contributions in more than one IETF area, preferably authoring documents and/or chairing WGs in more than one area. (ADs are expected to personally review every Internet-Draft that they sponsor. For other Internet-Drafts, ADs must be satisified that adequate review has taken place.) It is very helpful for an IESG member to have a good working knowledge of the IETF document process and WG creation and chartering process. This knowledge is most likely to be found in experienced IETF WG chairs, but may also be found in authors of multiple documents. IESG members must also have strong verbal and written communications skills. They must have a proven track record of leading and contributing to the consensus of diverse groups. IESG members must deal with many technical topics, so a strong technical background is required, but an IESG members should also have strong management and communication skills. An IESG member should guide WGs to follow their charters and nurture new talent to fulfil IETF leadership roles in the future. A FEW COMMENTS ON THE IESG ROLE Serving on the IESG requires a substantial time commitment. The basic IESG activities consume between 25 and 40 hours per week (varying by area and by month, with the most time required immediately before IETF meetings). Most IESG members also participate in additional IETF leadership activities, further increasing the time commitment for those individuals. Even if they do not occupy formal liaison positions, ADs may also need to interact with external bodies such as other standards development organizations (SDOs), which may require travel. It is also imperative that IESG members attend all IETF meetings (typically arriving one or two days early) and attend one, and sometimes two, IESG retreats per year. Because of the large time and travel commitments, employer support for a full two year term is essential. Because of personal impact, including awkwardly timed conference calls, an IESG member's family must also be supportive. APPLICATIONS AREA The Applications Area has historically focused on three clusters of protocols. The first cluster contains application protocols
Re: [Fwd: Requirements for Open IESG Positions]
Ralph Droms wrote: The Applications Area most often intersects with, and sometimes swaps working groups or work items with, the Security Area (for application-level security, or applications where security is an important aspect) and the Transport Area (for issues with congestion in applications), so cross-area expertise in either of these areas would be particularly useful. Presumably requirements for different areas should be symmetrical: RAI and Transport both intersect with Application Area, so Application should mentioned RAI as well. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[Fwd: Requirements for Open IESG Positions]
Under the Nominations Committee procedures defined in RFC 3777, the IESG is responsible for providing a summary of the expertise desired of the candidates selected for open IESG positions. This information is included below, and is suitable for publication to the community, along with the Nomination Committee's request for nominations. We realize that this is a long list of demanding qualifications, and that no one person will be able meet all of the requirements for a specific position. We trust that the NomCom will weigh all of these qualifications and choose IESG members who represent the best possible balance of these qualifications. Generic Requirements: IESG members are the managers of the IETF standards process. This means that they must understand the way the IETF works, be good at working with other people, be able to inspire and encourage other people to work together on a volunteer basis, and have sound technical judgment about IETF technology and its relationship to technology developed elsewhere. ADs select and directly manage the WG chairs, so IESG members should possess sufficient interpersonal and management skills to manage ~15-30 part-time people. Most ADs are also responsible for one or more directorates or review teams. So the ability to identify good leaders and technical experts and recruit them for IETF work is required. Having been a WG chair helps in understanding the WG chair role, and will help in resolving problems and issues that a WG chair may have. In addition, all IESG members should have strong technical expertise that crosses two or three IETF areas. Ideally, an IESG member would have made significant technical contributions in more than one IETF area, preferably authoring documents and/or chairing WGs in more than one area. IESG members are expected to make sure that every document coming before the IESG is properly reviewed. Although IESG members may delegate the actual review to individuals or review teams, the IESG members will need to understand and represent the reviewers' objections or comments. So the ability and willingness to read and understand complex information quickly is another important attribute in an IESG member. (Note that this does not mean that every AD must review every draft personally - but they must be satisified that adequate review has taken place.) It is helpful for an IESG member to have a good working knowledge of the IETF document process and WG creation and chartering process. This knowledge is most likely to be found in experienced IETF WG chairs, but may also be found in authors of multiple documents. IESG members must also have strong verbal and written communications skills and a proven track record of leading and contributing to the consensus of diverse groups. A few comments on the IESG role: Serving on the IESG requires a substantial time commitment. The basic IESG activities consume between 25 and 40 hours per week (varying by area and by month, with the most time required immediately before IETF meetings). Most IESG members also participate in additional IETF leadership activities, further increasing the time commitment for those individuals. Even if they do not occupy formal liaison positions, ADs may also need to interact with external bodies such as other standards organizations, which may require travel. It is also imperative that IESG members attend all IETF meetings and up to two additional IESG retreats per year. Because of the large time and travel commitments, employer support for a full two year stint is essential for an IESG member. Because of personal impact including awkwardly timed conference calls, an IESG member's family must also be supportive. --- Applications Area: The Applications Area focuses on applications that run across the Internet and require some sort of standardized infrastructure to be effective. This includes, but is not limited to: E-Mail, Web protocols, Directory services, printing services and NetNews. The Applications area often discusses whether something is properly the realm of the IETF or belongs to other organizations. Because of this, and Applications AD needs to be willing and able to relate to a wide range of non-IETF organizations. An Applications AD also needs to be someone that we can trust to make these critical decisions about the scope of the IETF's work. Because of the breadth of the Applications area, an Application AD will have to deal with a large set of Internet applications protocols, including many with which he or she may not have direct experience. So, an Applications AD needs to be good at evaluating new approaches to new problems and assessing the expertise of the people who bring them to the IETF Because the set of people in the Applications Area changes with the protocols currently under development, the ability to clearly explain how the IETF works, and to help new WGs work well within the IETF
