How foolish of me... Plenary notes from last night

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

I did catch some clarification questions - let me pass my notes along
while you still might be able to use them!

Spencer

Wednesday Night Plenary

* Welcome - Harald and Leslie

Doing different split than usual - report Wednesday, listen Thursday

Attendance - smallest IETF since 1997, 1211 attendees
	far fewer countries than Vienna - 29 vs 40
	severe visa problems for many contributors
	256 companies

Kudos for the NOC who chased down ad hoc nodes

Next meeting in Korea, hosted by Samsung, organized by KIEF, Feb 28-March 5
	Summer and Fall likely back in the US

RFCs 3550-3645, DHCPv6, Diameter, Draft RTP, Security Considerations, many SIP documents, many others

Finances don't look good, real income from meetings significantly lower than budgeted
	Secretariat staffing was reduced - less room for projects

* Advisory Committee (ADVCOMM) Report - Leslie Daigle

- IAB publishing documents - looking for input on Congestion Control for Voice Traffic, Internet Research and Evolution
	published RFC 3639, Security Mechanisms for the Internet, ISOC BoT Appointment Procedures

- ICANN commentary on VeriSign wildcarding in .com/.net

- Tony Hain appeal response

  Available on IAB website, IAB upheld IESG upholding AD upholding WG chairs...

- IANA Report - John Crane
  Michelle is especially productive (headed for maternity leave)
  Have hired general manager at IANA and added staff
  New registry matrix available next week
  Testing workflow software
  Doug Barton joining IANA from Yahoo!

- RFC Editor Report - Joyce Reynolds
  Mark Crispin - can I have nroff source back?
    Yes, and we are also accepting XML - don't start over!
  Charles Perkins - corresponding author for I-Ds approved for publication?
    People change jobs, or just disappear - what to do? Some authors have been removed by ADs because we can't find them

- IRTF Update - Vern Paxson
  AAAArch - energy and work moving to GGF
  ASRG - may have reverse MX ready for IETF - Paul Judge stepping down, replaced by John Levine
  DTNRG - coupling ad hoc IP routing and DTN store-and-forward, documents ready for publication
  GSEC - still meeting
  IMRG - bandwidth estimation workshop coming up in December, designing protocols to aid measurement, packet sampling
  NMRG - SMIng publishing as Experimental
  NSRG - closing
  P2P - kicking off
  SIREN - stalled for problem statement
  SMRG - actively seeking members and topics
  RRG - new chair, Avri Doria, routing requirements draft
  MOBOPTS - from Vienna, research MIP counterpart
  Topics - loc-id split, DDOS defenses, network intrusion detection, security mechanism evaluation/testing - please send feedback to irtf-chair@irtf.org

  Melinda Shore - CFRG? didn't file summary, so don't have report, but still out there

- NOMCOM - Rich Draves
  Watch your mail for incoming questionnaires...
  Still looking for nominations (noon deadline on Friday)
  nomcom@ietf.org, office hours at this meeting

* Advcomm Report - Leslie Daigle

  participants were IETF-experienced, especially aware of the oral history of the IETF for data gathering part of the task
  00 draft will be published after these plenaries, followed by final report and recommendations
  expect to shut down by mid-December
  this is NOT the reorganization effort, or the standards track change effort
  important support organizations aren't familiar to participants - CNRI, Foretec, USC/ISI, ICANN
  stress points - 
  - informal
  - oral heritage of procedures and knowledge
  - institutional records stored across multiple organizations
  - manual labor and lack of coordination
  - negative trends in meeting attendence, hence revenue for IETF

  Top-down requirements, some currently met
  - stewardship - accountability, persistence and accessibility of records
  - resource management - clarity in relationships, budgetary autonomy and unity, flexibility in service provisioning, admistrative efficiency
  - working environment - minimal overhead and volunteer effort as our heritage, but maybe need service automation, tools

 Recommendations
  - administrative structure changes are required
  - IETF organization should be formalized
 
 Next Steps
  - report, wrap up ADVCOMM, collect comments

 Harald and Leslie Conclusions
  - IETF legal existence is irregular
  - good work by fellow travelers
  - not easy to get all this right - need to make it easier to get work done
  - proposing IETF and IAB chairs to run the process with support
  - is this OK?

Scott Bradner - fuzzy "when appropriate" is fuzzy - can you clarify? 
   - either do it at the plenary or fess up at a plenary
   - can't wait for a plenary for every decision, especially for detailed legal discussions
   - do we have the right level of accountability?
   - last call process used where appropriate

Bob Hinden - generally supportive - need periodic status reports - not just a last call

Pete Resnick - "fellow travelers"? corporate status a given?
   - No!

Keith Moore - do we get to see the plan?
   - won't wake up one day and find out the IETF has been incorporated
   - yes, you will get to see the plan - there are parts we can only describe after the fact
   - most of the secrets will be personnel topics

Eric Flieshman - incorporated in Norway, or elsewhere?
   - have to figure this out, don't know yet

Graham Challice? - what if IAB and IESG disagree?
   - then we won't have consensus

John Snitzler - conditions for retroactive notification? is plenary attendance a condition for participation? plenaries aren't transparent (posted agendas, etc.)
   - plenaries are important
   - we aren't a membership organization, so can't vote
   - we hear you, and recognize need for advance notification

Tol Badge? - please explain proposals in words we can understand! we are an international body
   - as Norweigen and Canadians, we hear you

* IESG Work on IETF Process - Ted Hardie, Margaret Wasserman, Alex Zinin

A collective hallucination that doesn't lose money and works well together...

Our mission statement was too long - maybe "we make the net work"

Too many roles that fall to the same group of people
- Edu team, AdvComm, Experimental/Informational review ... we can differentiate based on functions
- need to support critical core value: cross-functional review
  more than just participating in a working group - IETF-wide last call, IESG review, WG "tourism"
  huge IETF resource is "off the books" - participants' time
- need to ask for help as more than a general appeal to a large group
- need to match management to change under consideration
  NEWTRK vs "Working Group Secretary for minutes production"

John Loughney - who is "we"? IETF? IESG? you, plus help?
  IESG presentation was agreed by IESG, my drafts weren't - they were individual proposals

Brian Carpenter - tools? is this EDU? don't forget it!
  no, different set of skills. IESG and non-IESG are working on this, but IESG isn't driving it. 

Margaret working from Problem Statement - management structure not matched to size and complexity of IETF
- span of authority, workload, concentration of influence in too few hands

We have more managers than we think - with inefficiently distributed authority and responsibility

Increase authority and responsibility of WG chairs
- focus now is moving AD authority and responsibility to WG chairs
- other possibilities exist for the future

Proposed changes
- No WG document ownership handoff
- Ensure document quality
- Manage document production
- Manage WG mailing lists

Many specifics, including
- document writeups for IESG review
- managing document editors
- suspend posting privileges of disruptive participants

We think WG chairs can do some of these things now - reinforce this!

WG chairs get more responsibility and more work. They have more control, though

And a transition is required - not a flag day

Scott Bradner - I-Ds have touched on some of this previously - WG chairs on review calls, etc.
- have discussed this, but need help with logistics
- too little discussion time for a document to make participation possible
proposal is to patch 2418 - lots of other suggested patches, too - doing only this?
- this is one patch, but other patches can be considered, too - just not tied to an open discussion
2026 also needs to be updated, if no document handoff takes place in new vision
- yes, this is possible

Keith Moore - can we read the draft?
- yes, it's available

??? - shock treatment - what possibility for gradual implementation?
- don't know yet - need a project plan

John Snitzline - accountability of new WG chairs? Selection process for WG chairs? WG chairs tend to be advocates now...
- no proposal to change how WG chairs are selected

Dave Crocker - we have one month to review changes?
- maybe it will take longer
what do ADs do then?
- my opinion - scope of IETF work and stds-track document approval
current authority of some of these items is actually with the WG, not the ADs
- we'll talk tomorrow

Ed Juscoviscious - how close to full time is a WG chair job?
- depends on the WG, have to delegate, too

Mark Crispin - current system of checks and balances is being thrown out - how is new system established?
- we're getting abuses today, according to the problem statement
is there a vision about how problems are prevented?
- only document written is an update to 2418

Bob Hinden - WG chairs have to resolve AD comments? this area needs more work
- shepherding AD doesn't have authority to ask for discuss removal now...

Jim Bound - why not POISED?
- it's closed

Alex speaking on Cross-functional Review

Crosd-functional reviews today can be community or management
- tends to be late in the process - leads to surprises and frustration
- IESG review won't scale
- expert groups not widely known
- no general process support for early review

Many reasons for early cross-functional review in problem statement document

Transition likely to cover two IETF periods

Discussion on Solutions list

Scott Bradner - what's the real timeline? February is aggressive...
- discussion period is short, transition is at least two IETF periods

James Polk - concerned with each proposal - no reference to load on security area - we review every document
- each area review team has a security person
not enough language or appreciation for the amount of work required

Melinda Shore - "make a decision" - what does that mean? 
- decision by IETF consensus

* Harald - these proposals include "figure out what the proposal is, discuss with community, reach consensus, and then do it"

Is the IETF a standards organization?

Is the IETF making standards for the Internet, or for "what's on the Internet"?

Is functional differentiation reasonable?

What should we go after first?

Is WG chair proposal right(er)?

MUCH more work required for document review topic.