Hi John,
Thanks for your comments/proposals, I always know that your
discussions are important for my progress in IETF. I reply some
comments as below,
On 5/30/13, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jari,
>
> Inspired by two of your recent notes and Dave Crocker's long
> one last weekend (with which I almost completely agree should
> that be notable), let me make a few observations:
>
> (1) To the extent to which the IETF's focus is on protocols that
> we hope vendors and others ("producers" in the vocabulary of
> some other SDOs) will implement and try to get deployed, lines
> of argument that start with "they use the Internet there,
> therefore they should be participating in the IETF" may just be
> irrelevant. If there is a major vendor design presence in a
> region, then we should be very concerned if we don't have
> significant presence from that region in the IETF as well. But,
> if the vendor presence is limited to marketing, sales, and
> perhaps implementation, then, if that is a problem, it is one
> that doesn't lie easily within IETF scope... and probably
> shouldn't.
Yes, let's be explicit, we need to discuss the IETF meeting not
discuss the IETF business, IMHO, meetings are for establishing better
connection between the IETF and the Internet-Community. Does the IETF
have a buildings or locations it is reside in? I see no location,
because it is for the world to participate business remotely.
IMHO, IETF is not just a standards-setting body, please read what it
says about itself:
I disagree, the IETF is not only for protocol-standards, IMHO, it is
for the Internet and its community, please read;
IETF> The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by
producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence
the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.
IETF> The IETF is a Large open international community of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the
evolution of the Internet architecture and the and the smooth
operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual.
>
> (2) As far as I can tell, the operators in most regions are
> generally well represented in, and collaborate using, the
> various *NOGs. If those groups aren't serving their needs, it
> is probably not a problem for the IETF. If they are, then the
> IETF should no more be trying to invade that turf than a certain
> Geneva-based organization should be invading ours. We are not a
> user group either. To the extent to which there is a need for
> more user groups or more effective ones, I hope that the ISOC
> Chapter structure is at least making useful contributions in the
> area.
I don't know why you exclude users, and separate their participation
to Chapters. The problem of IETF is to give opportunity to regions to
use IETF.
>
> (3) Our Operations and Management Area is mostly about protocols
> and tools (just as the Applications area really isn't about
> applications as user/purchasers normally understand that term)
> and therefore those with the most skin in the game are, again,
> producers, vendors, and designers, not users or even operators.
> The latter are important for figuring out whether a particular
> facility will meet identified needs, but that is typically more
> of a review function than a design one.
The user and operator are mentioned to be part in IETF, please read again;
IETF> The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by
producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence
the way people design, use, and manage the Internet.
IETF> The IETF is a Large open international community of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the
evolution of the Internet architecture and the and the smooth
operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual.
> If we need more input
> about such specs, we might ask the various *NOGs or similar
> groups to formally review proposed specifications rather than
> depending on people to come to f2f IETF meetings or even to
> follow our mailing lists. So, while closer contact with
> operator communities is always good (and not just for that
> Area), we may need to adjust our expectations to the reality of
> what we can do effectively, rather than forcing on broadening
> participation for its own sake.
Let's make IETF give opportunity to all parts (mentioned in its
mission statement) to participate,
>
> (4) There are some areas of work in the IETF in which very broad
> geographic input --more accurately, broad cultural and
> linguistic input-- are absolutely essential. For example, the
> more we move into internationalization or make decisions that
> dictate or constrain user interfaces, the more danger we get
> into of making really stupid decisions if we don't have broad
> and diverse participation and input. To a degree, the same
> issue shows up in lower layers of the stack. For example, the
> vast majority of us spend our time using current-technology
> hardware, fast and high-capacity connections to the public
> Internet, and even faster LANs. We often subconsciously design
> for that sort of environment because we don't encounter the
> other kinds on a regular basis. I contend that we have a
> relatively poor history of protocol decisions when people are
> affected whose day-to-day technology is a decade or two behind
> our current experience.
I agree, but I prefare to say all areas of work need geographic input,
because you never know what will be needed in the future by the
Internet Community.
>
> (5) There are a lot of non-vendor participants in the IETF and
> even ones whose days as producers of implementations are mostly
> over, but it is still a relatively small minority (and, as far
> as I can tell, getting smaller). As a member of that group, I
> wish it were larger, both for balance and because I think that
> we may have an easier time maintaining focus on the overall
> well-being of the Internet as a complete system than people
> whose focus is getting the next product specified, implemented,
> and into the hands of users (or marketing organizations). But,
> if we contribute usefully, it is mostly because we bring
> considerable experience or perspective of one sort or another to
> the table. With rare (and occasionally very important)
> exceptions that include people from the research side of the
> community, a newly-minted engineer who has no producer
> organization affiliation to provide context is unlikely to be
> useful to us (and is reasonably likely to have a frustrating
> experience no matter what we do about "newcomers" or recruiting).
I disagree, please read in the IETF it mentions below as open to
individuals, so why you make them must have affiliations.
IETF> The IETF is a Large open international community of network
designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the
evolution of the Internet architecture and the and the smooth
operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual.
>
> (6) The IETF is (or has become) primarily an engineering and
> protocol design and standardization organization, something that
> was recognized over two decades ago when the community kept the
> IRTF separate but got rid of all the other non-IETF task forces.
> While we could try to "diversify" to include a much broader base
> of experience and interests that do not focus directly on our
> current range of activities, it is likely that doing so would
> increase noise without adding much to the signal.
Again, I think you maybe suggesting to change the IETF mission or the
type of participants the IETF needs.
IMHO, the Internet-community individuals are the important focus of
the IETF, so no one can become noise only if he/she gets out of
IETF-procedure. Noise is out of the system-procedure of the signal
communication, so it is noise, so your example is not correct when you
refer to IETF's diverse parts.
>
> One thing that all of those observations have in common is that
> none of them are likely to be affected by a single meeting in a
> single location. Probably holding a whole year or two of
> meetings in the same general vicinity wouldn't make any
> significant difference either, at least after we moved on.
I disagree, please read statistics, the most participants are from
North America, and the most meetings held are in North America. I
think if we ask a business men/women of if there is an affect or not,
they will say there are affects, humans are sensitive but different
way than machines.
> Borrowing from some of the discussions about mentoring during
> and after IETF 86, I suggest that, if we really want to
> encourage active participation from places where we now have
> very little, we would:
>
> (i) Try to increase awareness of the IETF and what it does in
> those areas, via ISOC chapters, lectures, and other forms of
> contact. Variations on this have been suggested by others.
> Note that doing this for a given location would require putting,
> at most, one or two people on airplanes (possibly at IETF or
> ISOC expense),
I have no objection only if the new-comer agrees to such mentoring.
>not order 1000 of us at individual or company
> expense. (See George Michaelson's most recent note in the "IETF
> Meeting in South America" thread.)
No one is forced to attend or spend time/money, we always have remote
facilities to do the job in all IETF activities. Please read my reply
to that post of sub;meeting in South America that you refered to.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79765.html
>
> (ii) Try to assign a document process advisor to each newcomer
> the first time that person posts an I-D (or earlier if we can
> determine that an I-D is in progress or should be generated from
> other discussions). This is a little different from a mentor
> (see Iiii)) in that the role would be to specifically advise on
> the process of getting a document through the system, what
> obstacles are likely to be encountered, etc., and could be
> pretty aggressive if that were necessary. The process advisor
> could recommend that that author seek out other resources,
> including a mentor or editorial help, when necessary. The
> IETF's curmudgeon component, many of whom would make lousy
> mentors, might still be good document process advisors.
Disagree, that is discriminating between participants, all
participants should be equal don't you think,
>
> (iii) Allow new participants who intend to participate remotely
> and by mailing list to request and be assigned mentors, ideally
> mentors who speak the participant's primary language. Focusing
> our efforts only on people who show up at meetings means that we
> leave the folks who could be among our more productive
> participants in the cold and, for most regions where we have
> little penetration and resources are a problem, pretty much
> guarantees that it will stay that way.
Again that is discrimination of focus-of-efforts, the IETF does not do
that. However, if the some new-participant agrees with that, then it
can be ok, otherwise, no. So it should be after the agreement of
participant and with no excluding if disagreed.
>
> (iv) Encourage ISOC to redesign the IETF Fellows program so that
> people who were reasonable candidates for long-term
> participation were tracked differently from the
> observer-tourists. In the potential participant track, the
> assumption should be that Fellows might have participated
> remotely (including by mailing list) already, that such
> participation would give a candidate Fellow some extra priority
> or points in the selection process, and that activities during
> IETF should include explicit and focused discussions of optimal
> ways to participate without attending meetings. If we (or ISOC,
> or other organizations) later get the Fellows to more meetings,
> that would be great, but the goal should be to make a good
> remote participant, not people who can be effective only if they
> attend a lot of face to face meetings.
I agree that IETF management discuss this point with ISOCs (or each
region ISOC), and each ISOC feedback should be considered as well.
>
> The above would not be easy.
Nothing is easy when it involves alot of people's lives/times/money.
However, IMO, your proposal will not be encouraging all
new-participants but maybe only yung-new-participants.
> It would require a large number of
> experienced members of the community to make a major commitment
> to working with new authors and non-attendee newcomers.
I support this point as well, but without making new-participant feel
that he/she discriminated from others. If it is only saying you are in
level 1 of participating, fine but not saying; well you are in level 1
so please don't make noise (such behavior is not acceptable), or you
are in level 1 so no one in the community wants to know your thoughts
(such behavior is not acceptable), or you did not write an I-D so
people will not listen to you until you do, etc.
> But it
> would help significantly to bridge the gap between "interested
> in the IETF and its work" and "contributing participant".
Only if there is mutual respect and equal opportunities,
> Flying a thousand person-weeks worth of folks into an area where
> we have little participation and attracting a few local tourists
> won't have the same effect --with or without a few hours of
> "newcomer" sessions-- and will still leave people with the need
> to make that transition if they are going to be effective.
Regarding region attraction/effects, I may agree and disagree.
Agreeing because I want to meet some authors of excellent RFCs, but I
mostly disagree with the point for some reasons. Your point here is
assuming many things which are not always true. You assume that
majority of Internet-community are represented by current IETF
participation, and that if new participating they mostly may not be
affective. You assume that all IETF f2f participants are all affective
and will continue that way. You assume that other regions that are not
participating in IETF because they are not aware of the IETF. You
assume that being effective mostly-means that you have to f2f attend
meeting. You assume that new-comers will be encouraged by
special-sessions, and assume that the thousand persons need to make
transition to such region. IMHO, the IETF work and *business* is
mostly done *remotely* on its lists not in f2f meetings, but community
interconnections are done in *meetings*. Therefore recommend a Wider
Geographic Participation Diversified and not discriminated.
Please note that the above is my opinion and believe, but if the
comments are wrong, feel free to comment on them.
Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
- I worked on four new I-Ds so far and doing my best to renew them shortly.
- I never attended an IETF meeting so far, because not able to, but I
will do in future, because want to meet most of the IETF ADs which are
encouraging, and to meet some participants that done excellent RFCs.
- I beleive that I am always affective and following procedure. I am
active to remote participate in IETF business as long as no manager in
IETF informed me to stop (relating to legal procedure), or informed me
that I am out-of-procedure (with reference/reason).