|
Please send corrections (and especially name mis-attributions
and mispellings) to me privately, so I can make them in the official minutes,
but this is what I caught so far...
Spencer
1930-2200 Plenary - International
Ballroom Center
- Welcome, and
introduction - Harald Alvestrand
- 1314 attendees this IETF, pretty close to Seoul and San
Diego
- Number of countries is down from 40s to mid-20s
- Still getting work done
- 4 new WGs, 11 closed working groups
- lots of IDs (especially in last couple of weeks)
- Looks like we're headed for a new world's record in
publishing RFCs...
- Spring IETF in Minneapolis (March 6-11), Summer in Paris,
France (France Telecom sponsoring), working on Fall location in Canada next
year
-
Host's presentation ( name goes here - sorry! )
- Even fingerprinting technology is incompatible
...
- Why don't the Host RFCs actually help IETF hosts? At least
none are written by Al Gore...
- Gee, we've always been light on presentation technology (for
more than 35 years!)
- I remember all the events of my 14th year except the birth of
the Internet...
- We owed it to the IETF to play our part as hosts for this
event, and we learned a lot
- Recognition of Susan Brewer and Ben Crosby for special
efforts in making this event happen
- A word from the NomCom
(Danny McPherson)
- Looking for feedback, guidelines in RFC 3777, until
11/23/2004
- nomcom04@xxxxxxxx, or talk to someone with an orange
dot
- "retaliatory nominations not
considered!"
- State of operations:
RFC Editor report (Aaron Falk)
- Document arrivals steadily increasing, professional copy-
editor now in use - authors may see more queries now
- RFC Ed desk hours at IETF seem to be popular - plan to
continue at future IETFs
- New boilerplate is available (recommend referring to these as
BCP numbers)
- Getting more XML than we used to - please send us your XML if
you use it
- Joe Touch has put together a new MS-Word template - feedback
to Joe or to us
- Submissions and publishing are running
neck-and-neck
IANA report (Doug Barton)
- Spending time looking at draft queue dwell time - coming very
close to goal of "less than four weeks" now
- Have hired new staff (Pearl Liang), and Michelle is working
with IETF more closely
- Want to be more transparent
- Queue is about 20 documents now, average age is
decreasing
- Meeting with IESG and IAB to improve reporting on performance
and goals
- Queue status page is now online
- Private Enterprise Number registry and port registry requests
current or close to it
IESG operations (Allison Mankin, Bill Fenner)
- Training copy editors is really important...
- Presenting update of same data described in San
Diego
- We're approving more documents than requested - we're getting
ahead
- Numbers are lower, but interval is 14 weeks against 22
Seoul-to-San Diego
- Will continue to make this data available and to evaluate
upcoming PROTO experiments - we're interested in
suggestions
- Review of Architectural
Activities
IAB Chair report (Leslie Daigle)
- Seeking inputs on Link-Layer Indications and Liaison
Relationships IAB drafts (see our web page for pointers)
- OMA-IETF Liaison Report is approved and in publication
queue
- Meeting with ISOC on Administrative Restructuring
- Pete Resnick reported on Messaging Workshop on consent-based
messaging, supporting IRTF, IESG, and IAB
- Solicited write-ups and did a two-day workshop of
breakouts
- Thought about key distribution and identity, ignored
canonical ratholes ("elephant in the middle of the room")
- Worked on engineering, research, and architectural
topics
- Will publish report and begin thinking about future
workshops (this was first workshop in two and a half years - high startup
transient!)
- Administrative Restructuring
(Harald and Leslie)
- (Steve Bellovin is stepping down - being replaced by Sam
Hartmann as Security AD)
- We want to present where we are and where we are going and
talk about the AdminRest draft
- We believe there is community consensus for moving forward
Admin as an ISOC activity - defining documents are still drafts ("speak now"),
and we're starting to work based on these drafts
- We've been working on this since August 2003, and pretty
intensely
- Have joint IAB/IESG draft on admin restructuring
- Have discussed with ISOC board
- Goals
- Keep IETF going in 2005
- Get BCP approval for what we're doing
- Make decisions by people responsible for long-term
success
- Want to move quickly, be transparent, be
effective
- Have added editor team for BCP drafts, hoping for more
community discussion
- Will ask NOMCOM to fill IAOC slots when BCP approved (four
week last call)
- Would love to approve at January 6 telechat
- Want to appoint a transition team for restructuring this
month - looking for good candidates, please send e-mail to
IAB/IESG
- Want to seat initial IAOC in January/February timeframe, with
contracts in place by mid-2005
- None of this should be news, right?
- Won't get to RFP before 2005, CNRI is working on new
proposals for secretariat in 2005 - IASA transition team will review, may be
able to sole-source for a period of time and then integrated with
IASA
- Harald presented document content and open
issues
- Read the documents - devil IS in the details.
- IASA continues close relationship with ISOC
- Continued separation between ISOC fundraising and IETF
standards process
- ISOC still has oversight
- Remember- no change to IETF technical process
- The acronyms are endless (this is an IETF activity,
so...)
- "One, single, salaried person who makes sure we have
administrative contracts that are executed and meet IETF needs"
- Almost everything is outsourced...
- Seven voting members (two chosen by IETF NOMCOM, one by
IESG, one by IAB)
- Two funding sources (unchanged from today, but go into one
pot)
- Budget determined each year (details in the
draft)
- The BCP is an IETF document and will be last called on IETF
list to the community.
- ISOC must approve this, too (since they have to do their
part)
- Need to set timelines for the dates we're shooting
for
- Issues remaining
- Final composition of IAOC?
- Questions?
- Dave Nelson - is new admin process more or less expensive
than previously? We're adding one paid person, don't know about the total
yet. Need to move overall administration under one umbrella - hope for
efficiencies, don't know for a fact. Best-guess 2005 budget posted to IETF
list this morning.
- Michael Richardson - will we get better organization? Will
we know where the meetings are? If not, it's our fault.
- John Klensin - two observations and a question - can you
put out critical documents that aren't on top of plenary meetings? We are
making progress (documents were out two weeks ago). Not a complaint, just a
request. The timeline is still a draft. Timelines have shifted - why? Will
they shift in the future? We're adding external review by experts - great!
Where does it fit in the timeline? Still thinking about this, because we
just added external review yesterday morning. Keep an eye on new versions of
the BCP draft for details, and guidance on advisors is appreciated. The
timeline has been out since 00 of the Internet Draft, to be
fair.
- Richard Perlman - based on budgeting proposal this morning,
much of our funding will come from public registry income - how dependent
will we be on an external organization? We had multiple ideas on where to go
in the consultant's report at San Diego - we think this is the lowest-risk
option. Go home and tell your organizations to contribute to ISOC! Lynn -
it's actually $840K, and next year is a significant increase (RFC Editor,
for example). This is not an aggressive plan, not a conservative plan.
Thinking about a long-term commitment that accommodates other ISOC
activities (education, etc.). - Ted Hardie - look for details about
operational reserves in the draft, what it covers, etc. Recognize that we
need to raise additional funds in some way.
- Brian Carpenter - we can evaluate the risk when we see a
budget - thank you for sending it. This is already an improvement - we don't
know what today's risk actually is! Should the IAB chair be voting or ex
officio? My preference is voting. - Margaret Wasserman: all the proposals
had different membership proposals, and we left them different to stimulate
discussion. My preference is actually freeing up IAB to do architecture and
not worry so much about stuff like this. Brian - this is now another
external liaison, of course... Community discuss, please!
- Bob Kahn - I starting out thinking restructuring is a bad
idea. I've come around. Some degree of restructuring is appropriate based on
organizational maturity. I (CNRI) am optimistic, but do have some concerns:
Any new restructuring has to stand on its own and meet real needs. There are
needs that haven't been considered. Please look at Patrice's proposal (it's
a current draft). How to define performance levels for support organizations
and see if they are being met? The IETF will have additional needs in the
future - need to think about this, too. The Internet has the attention of
everyone in the world - the world needs to be comfortable with the new
structure, too, and recognize that not all the issues will be technical
("public interest at large"). And don't count on sharing resources - the
existing support structures are all under stress! Go with lightweight
structure while we make the transition.
- Harald - recognize that the IETF chair wasn't picked for
this experise... We have been aggressively open, and this has been our
defense against charges of conspiracy. We need to stay open and stay
relevant.
- Dave Nelson - this may be necessary but not sufficient for
long-term survival. What about long-term economics? Our work seems to be
getting more expensive as time passes. San Diego presentation about all the
organizations that want to play a part in "the Internet". Harald - this
isn't actually part of AdminRest, but it does matter (Leslie agrees here).
We need to be financially transparent and responsible.
- Aaron Falk - RFC editor has added staff, has increased our
staff cost, don't know about effect on overall costs. I sympathize with the
work you guys have been doing (speaking as a liaison participant). Are there
already new BCP editors? What do we do with our feedback? Harald - we've
gotten suggestions for editors inside and outside the IESG. Send feedback to
IESG or IAB, but issues to IETF list - we haven't gotten a lot of feedback
yet.
- Spencer's thank-you.
- Patrice Lyons - a lot of organizations at this level of
maturity formalize their status (it's BEEN 35 years). Should you have a
formal existence? Should you have an Executive Director that reports
directly to the organization, not to some other group? Third-parties
providing legal advice aren't tied to this organization! Should the IETF
determine its own budget? IAB/IAOC/ISOC isn't the IETF, or even the IETF
leadership. Leslie - there's a lot more detail in the draft than on the
slides - this really is an IETF budget. Maybe legal counsel really is
required for some of this - we've had external counsel before.
- Ted Hardie - "a collective delusion with brownies at
breaks" - the IETF is so anti-organizational! becoming a membership
organization probably makes sense, but the feedback we got was "no". We're
trying to do the least we can do that allows the community to continue to do
the volunteer work we've done in the past. If we don't listen to the
community, they should fire us.
- Patrice - speaking as counsel to CNRI, but I'm a member of
the community, too. You're talking about million-dollar budgets, but you're
relying on third parties to plan your future. That's not what you want. Take
six months, read my draft, think it over.
- Harald - we decided not to incorporate in 1994, pretty
strongly, and I'm still hearing support for this decision now ("we're fine
as we are"). We just haven't seen any sign of community consensus to change
this.
- John Klensin - I've been concerned for six months that we
would make imporant decisions (potentially fatal choices) without adequate
community input. We're doing a lot of good things, but I'm concerned that
(for instance) we may hire our "one person" according to the wrong job
description. Also - there's a rumor about internal organizational changes at
the secretariat - would anything like this disrupt the process or blindside
the community? Also - IANAL, but I've hung around other standards bodies. In
the US, there's an American National Standards Institute - they don't create
standards, they accredit standards organizations - the vast majority of
accredited organizations are not separately incorporated - doesn't agree
with what Patrice was saying about mature organizations.
- Bill Manning - I've read these documents - I worry about
attrition, about people voting with their feet if the IETF becomes too
onerous. Are we losing return attendees?
- Tim Shepherd - What is the IETF? In some sense, it's only
the administrative support organization, because we can vote with our feet!
We're all volunteers. I'm not worried.
- Patrice Lyons - we're not just moving papers around, we're
talking about funding, and funding can bring ties if you're not careful. My
proposal didn't require incorporation, only formal existence - the NYSE ran
that way for years.
- Dave Nelson - people aren't walking into the IETF, we
haven't had any KAZAAs. Are we moving too fast?
- David Black - I spend time in ANSI organizations, and John
is slightly wrong - IEEE is incorporated.
- Spencer - is anyone thinking about increasing IETF
participation? Harald doesn't want to talk about this as an issue of
restructuring.
- Harald - how many people think we're moving too fast? too
slow? about right? Allison - how many people want us to just go
away?
- Bob Kahn - I'm hoping at the next meeting I'll be able to
present proposals for CNRI changes, but, in the meantime - we never wanted
to be in our role forever. We want to shed our "public interest" role -
don't know how to offload that yet. We also want to develop a mechanism for
operational change control - we're heading there. Things are costing less -
that's a problem! Attendance is down, support is down - and that's not good.
We want to turn a lot of CNRI oversight responsibilities directly to the
IETF. Foretec may be a player in this, going forward, but we need to
structure this relationship appropriately. About consensus - the Tao of the
IETF for decades has been running code and rough consensus. This plan isn't
running code yet - how can you have informed consensus?
- Joint IAB/IESG Open Plenary
- Bill Manning - IETF should no longer work on IPv6. We should
work on IP or replacements of IP. Calling out versions leads to divisiveness.
- David Perkins - I was recently SPAMmed by IPv6 Summit because
I came to the IETF. Do we have a zero tolerance policy against spammers?
People who harvest contact information? Require double-opt-in? Harald - we're
still working on preventing other people from spamming using our systems! But
it sounds like a plan - send a draft.
- Tony Hain - I agree with Bill Manning - remove version
numbers from working group names. We're stuck, and we need to move forward, or
we'll be roadkill.
- Margaret - we're not going to transition to IPv6 the way we
expected - we need to focus on a network that has both, for a very long
time.
- Donald Eastlake - main reason attendance is down is because
we got bombed. People have been predicting the death of the IETF for a while.
- Fred - on SIP/whitelist capabilities
- Spencer - concerned about weird devices that transform
packets in the network - BEHAVE, SIPPING ad hoc last night on Session Border
Controllers. What if the wasp waist of the internet stops being IP? That's
been the threat for ten years, and HTTP isn't the alternative like it was in
the mid-1990s. Jonathan Rosenberg - share your concern, we need to meet this
head-on and deal with it. Spencer - not criticizing our response and
appreciate what we're doing now - I'm just concerned. When can we think about
architecture some more?
- (sorry - missed name) - concern is IPR. Interested in a
protocol, but it has IPR. Harald - IPR is tricky - we're trying to do what we
can. Steve Bellovin - community hasn't changed enough to change our stance on
IPR since the last time we thought about it, and we can't fix the problem as a
whole from inside the IETF.
- <>(sorry - missed first name) Williams - Security BoF
at last IETF - it's not about security, it's about contracts. Can more be done
to help do business on the Internet? Russ - we expect to see a repeat BoF at
Minneapolis.
- Harald - we need more informed consent on AdminRest. We have
one Internet, not two, and we need to act like it.
|