Internet Engineering Task Force 111, 28 Jul 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: IETF111-PLENARY-20210728-2300

Description

PLENARY meeting session at IETF111
2021/07/28 2300

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/proceedings/

A

That was long ago.

B

I don't know, can you request to share a powerpoint? I think you can.

C

Hi all um is the audio okay happy to see him held in the room.

C

It's fine great! Thank you. um Welcome to the itf 111 plenary. My name is uh lars eckhart. I chair the ietf. This is my first plenary flying solo. I had alyssa with me for the last one. This one is also at 2am local time for me here in finland, and I appreciate my fellow europeans showing up as well at this time. I'll try to be fast.

C

um You guys can help being fast by uh not asking too many questions and if you're asking questions, ask them uh concisely and we'll try to answer them concisely, but first we have some administrative to go to. um Can I get the next slide? Please alexa.

C

Right, so, um if you are gonna speak during this meeting, it would be um your audio and video will be off when you join the meet taco. You should know this by now. If you're participating during the week, you get into the queue by clicking the little hand icon.

C

When we're acknowledging you to speak, you are welcome to mutual micro. You should unmute your microphone, so we can hear you, but I also encourage you to share your video. It makes it much easier, especially for non-native speakers to understand, what's being said, if they get a visual of the face um and if you have a headset uh use one, I don't happen to have one here, but it's pretty quiet given that it's 2am. So hopefully this is okay and there's some more guidelines from meat echo that you may refer to.

C

If you need more information than that.

C

I should mention also that we have a chat, as you may know, it's it's logged over into the jabra system and it gets archived together with the minutes of the meeting. So keep that in mind as you're typing away in the chat it's actually going into the public record and after the last meeting we got some feedback that some comments were could be misunderstood as not being very professional. So keep that in mind as you're typing away.

C

I know everybody is sort of a little bit bored in this remote setting um and the chat sort of is the thing that that makes you feel connected to the community so so feel free to use it, uh as you will then, but keep in mind that we're archiving it um right. We have the usual agenda here. um The welcome part is what I'm trying to do right now. um We have a host presentation, or at least an address from the host of the meeting, which is juniper networks who have been again supporting us substantially.

C

For this meeting. We have the usual round of brief updates from various bodies, um the isg. I think that should say not the ietf, the iab, the irtf, the rfc editor, the nomcom this time and the itf llc board longer reports. Written reports are available and they're linked from the slide deck and have been emailed out to the various announcement lists.

C

um We have a special session where jay daley is going to talk about some results from this all of itf uh survey that we emailed out to basically everybody who subscribed to one of our mailing lists and the results are pretty interesting. So there's a long report that I think has been announced already, um I'm going to talk a little bit about the highlights and we'd be.

C

You know interested in hearing your thoughts on them and then we have the usual open mic sessions for the isg, the iab and the itf llc, and we're going to try and do all of that and not run over next slide. Please.

C

Right so I again like to thank juniper networks who are the host of this meeting. We really do appreciate your support, especially in these times of remote meetings, where um it's arguably a little bit more challenging for the host to get the full value out of supporting an organization like this and we're especially uh thankful for juniper stepping up and hosting the meeting.

C

As you all know, right, the itf could not exist without support like this and um we're looking forward to working with you guys going forward, and I think we have uh raj yawatkar who would like to say a few words. Is that correct? If so, please send video and audio.

C

C

Or maybe we don't.

C

Is raj in the list? Let me scroll down. There's too many names here.

C

D

C

C

Sorry so um watch might have some some audio video issues. I think what we're going to do is we're going to keep going, and ah here he.

C

Is raj, are you there.

C

No, we can't hear him now so my.

E

Suggestion would be.

C

We're going to come back to raj during the llc part, where we're gonna again. Thank you, nipper from the itf llc and we're gonna. Also thank the other various sponsors that we have um and um probably raj, has resolved his audio video issues. By then, can I get the next slide. Please.

C

Thank you so, thanks to juniper again uh and we're going to do that, one more time later on, um but also there's as always many other people who help make the meetings happen, even when they're all virtual, first and foremost secretariat, we could not operate without them. They really support the organization meet. Echo has provided a very flawless itf, at least for me. I've not heard about any major issues. The new slideshare functionality gets really good feedback from everybody.

C

The noc has been stellar, as always, I've not been aware of any network related issues and the tools team, as always, has sort of helped us improve our tools that support both the meeting and also the ongoing work of the itf. We had a hackathon, it's successful, as always. It's unfortunately also a little bit challenging to do these hackathons in a virtual format and we're really hoping that we can.

C

We can resume the in-person hackathon events which have been been excellent, but I think this hackathon has resulted in some great work as well, and I want to thank the llc you deal with all the boring stuff, so so the rest of us. Don't have to next slide, please.

C

Right this brings me to the itfj report. It's pretty short this time, because we have some other presentations that we wanted to leave enough time for next slide.

C

I'm going to talk a little bit about the usual participant statistics for this meeting. We have a short update on the impact of kovite 19 on the organization in terms of participation. Alvaro will talk about this he's been in a small isg team that crunched the numbers with help from the secretariat.

C

We um have a consultation out that finished um a few days ago on guidelines and a conditional plan for meetings that are impacted by kovit there's quite a bit of detail that came from the community and the pointers to that are coming and they're also online next slide.

C

Right so we've had 1369 registrations with a pretty uh strong number for an all virtual meeting. uh 299 people use the fee waivers we've uh offered an unlimited amount, and we didn't ask you know why you needed one. So it's good to see that they're being used. We had 265 hackathon participations. That is also a great number, with 18 projects being worked on. um We will update these statistics as they um as the week progresses and ends, and you get final information.

C

I guess in an update to this deck at some point, um the participation split is uh slightly less european, I would say than it normally is based on eyeballing this, which isn't surprising given the time zones, but the way we're running these virtual meetings is that we're rotating them around the globe and this time europe has the unfortunate nighttime slot.

C

um It is what it is next slide. Please right- and this is where I'm going to hand over to alvaro.

F

C

A second to talk about the impact of code 19.

F

Update thank you. Thanks lars we've been showing the last few plenary some numbers around. What we think is the impact of covert 19., uh basically we're looking at mainlanders messages, we're looking at the total number of drafts that have been submitted and specifically about at the zero zero drafts as well. So this table is basically a summary of the last four years and partially of this year.

F

You can see the numbers uh from january july we're a little bit past the the half point for the year. um If you look at the projection, which is basically just an extension of what has been happening until now, um we're running a little bit low, so we're running lower on everything, on mail messages, on ids, published and, of course, on zero zeros as well.

F

Some of these numbers are a little bit more significant percentage-wise than others, um and so what I want to do is show a couple of graphs that again, we've shown before next slide. Please.

F

This first one shows the number of mail messages. um If you look at really close, one of the lines at the top here is what 2020 looked like, and the one at the bottom that partially ends in june is the one for this year. uh The general trend is about the same. It goes up and down. uh It is lower, as I said before, uh what we've seen this year with respect to what we saw the last uh few years. It is not the lowest at this point, but but it is relatively low next slide.

F

This is the total number of internet drafts that have been published again. Many of the past few years show a very similar uh pattern where it goes up at around the ihf meetings. You know three peaks and around march around july and then november this year, which is the green line down here at the bottom, is what we've been seeing.

F

Clearly, this line is lower. It is a little bit different at the very beginning where it starts a little bit high and then it dips down in total. As I said before, it's a little bit lower a few percentage points with respect to what we've seen in the last uh three or four years and then next slide.

F

uh Finally, this is the zero zero drafts we already saw last year that um this the yellow line at the bottom is last year last year was already running lower than the years before um 17 through 19, and uh the green line, which is this year, is running a little bit lower as well next line.

F

So when we uh look at these numbers, uh we can make some observations. We honestly don't know exactly why this is happening, but we can make some observations in general, everything, as I said in 2020, seemed broadly in line with other years around the email and total draft zero zero were lower.

F

The general assumption here is that, given that we're not seeing each other face to face, or even seeing our colleagues at work or customers providers, anything like that that some of the new ideas are, of course lagging or lower, this seems to be sort of in line with what you could expect of anything from a completely online communication and no face-to-face meetings.

F

This year in 2021 we're seeing everything uh track a little bit lower emails, they're, still sort of in line but lower than before, and the drafts, and particularly the zero zero drafts are lower as well.

F

One of the assumptions, of course, is that again, because there's no face-to-face interaction because we're not seeing each other et cetera that some of the new ideas reflected in the zero zero drafts are uh lagging for now, so we will of course, keep an eye on this and we'll keep reporting.

F

uh We welcome your comments and ideas on on what this may be, the the result of uh later on or uh three no uh in the next few days back to yours. Thank.

C

You thanks alvaro um right. So if you have questions about this, uh um we can talk about this more during the isg open mic session. uh Next slide, please right um planning for future meetings. We, as always we have some meetings in the pipeline. um There is a process uh that began last week with a community consultation on whether we should move itf 112, which is the next itf in november, which should have been or should be in madrid to an all online meeting.

C

There's a link, you can click to provide your feedback, and you can also join the many coaches, itf mailing list to discuss these topics and other related topics on future meetings. Our next slide.

C

um There's a story of information on this page, um so, first of all tools, feedback. If you have any issues during the iitf, please email support itf.org. This is the ticket queue. It gets triaged to the correct person or organization. So any any issues you have with anything related to the meeting or the ietf support. Idf.Org. Is your your one-stop help desk, specifically for tools? If you have feature requests, there's a tools discussed at idf.org list, you can not only make requests there. You can also join the discussion on what should be done about them.

C

There will be a survey after itf 111 closes. Please fill out that survey if at all possible, it helps us, especially the llc, get valuable information that help us plan future meetings, um and then we have the schmoo working group which stands for stay home meet only online, which unfortunately met just before this plenary. um That's a group. That's charted in the general area to develop guidelines for fully remote meetings like this one specifically on what the meeting fee structure should be, how we have synchronous meetings.

C

What the meeting cadence and length should be, how we're having a hackathon associated with those meetings? um What are the considerations are canceling the meeting, and it has that bullet has a green check mark, because that draft is basically done. That's isg approved it needs a revision and then it'll be an rfc um and some requirements for a show of hands tool for meet echo. um The list is the same. I mentioned before it's the many couches that itf.worthless. So it's not.

G

Schmoo at iitf.org cunningly.

C

Has a different name um right next slide. Please.

C

um There's a few more topics in the online report from the isg and the chair, the highlights are: we had zero appeals since itf 110, um we put out five isg statements, which is a surprisingly large number, several of those were sort of in the pipeline for a long time. They just happened to come out during the cycle and there's many more details in the individual reports from the iab, the llc board to secretariat and ayanna and there's an itf.

G

C

Where the comms team blogs about ongoing events and technological developments, um so if you haven't checked that out, you should there's a every few weeks. I think another interesting article being published next slide. Please right, and that brings us to the uh brief report from the iab miriam.

H

Yep, hello, everybody and we can go to the next slide and skip that one as well yeah. So uh this is very brief report and, as always, the extended report has been uploaded to the proceedings, so you can click on this link and see all the nitty gritty. Interesting admin details there and then we also have an ib open session um in order to announce it here. um We have it on thursday, um so after the plenary and the iab open session uh is focusing more on the technical work the av is doing.

H

While today you might ask questions about some admin or strategy and things and of course feel free whenever you have a question or comment, and you don't want to use any of the open mac sessions to send email to the iab or to the ib chair directly. So to me, so this is a slide that we always have. Let's move to the next one.

H

Yeah I want to take the opportunity and make one quick announcement. The iab is planning for workshop on measuring network quality for end users in september, and the workshop will focus on questions about um how to measure and how to present this data in a meaningful world to end users and how to improve our tools and all these kind of things. There's more um extended description and call for contributions on the ieb webpage, and it was also sent to various mailing lists and the deadline for contributions is really soon it's next monday.

H

But all we need is a short position paper. If you have an opinion on that and then we would be able to invite you to participate in the workshop. So have a look at that and then the next slide.

H

Yeah um also, I would like to quickly take the opportunity to announce one of the open call for volunteers that we have right now, so the one that is still open is the one for um the icann nomination committee. um So you can volunteer yourself or you can also nominate somebody else, we're still looking for people. We had um not easy times in in having a good um set of candidates with a good diversity for a lot of these positions.

H

This is not unexpected, as these positions usually need a certain kind of expertise where you um have to be like an itf member, understand the itf, but also have to have some knowledge about the other community, and they come with certain time commitment and all these kind of things. So usually, this set of volunteers is not like huge, and but it is varying that, like their diversity is so low and the only way to increase it is really to um nominate yourself or talk to other people to nominate um them.

H

um It takes time, but it also sometimes a very interesting experience. So um please um nominate yourself, nominate other people or reach out to us, and then we had made a couple of appointments uh since the last itf meeting. So thank you and to everybody who was newly appointed in one of these positions. That's raspberry tim bryan and john. Thank you for serving um for putting your name in for taking up the time to serve in these positions.

H

Okay, um so that was mainly my part, but I have one more thing I want to convey here on the next slide or the next two slides. I guess.

H

If we can go to the next slide yeah, so um you might be aware that we have the iris the future, um obviously editor future development program. So that's an iab program. um However, it's more run like an open, iab uh itf um group, but it's just hosted by the ib, but it's not like really that we have any authority about that.

H

The purpose of this program is to redesign the rfc editor function and the reason why I want to bring it up here today is because recently there was really good progress in the program and they finally adopted a document which has like rough contents on it on a basic structure. So this is really the right time to contribute to look at the document um and see if you have any input for the for the for the group. um As I said it's an open group, you can just join the mailing list.

H

You can participate in the discussion and in the in the meetings, and there will be one meeting tomorrow and then on the next slide. um I provide you a very, very brief overview about.

H

You know what this new model is about, so there will be a little bit a new structure here, so instead of having only basically one rc editor and the rsc production center, the group converged on having the so-called rfc areas serious working group, which very much operates like a working group and decides about policy and strategic questions, and then there will be a new body which is called the rfc series approval board, which approves any of the document.

H

That is that are done in this working group, um and then that means that we still will have some um our irc series editor, maybe with a different name or role description, but this um position will be more advisory. That person will be part part of the approval board and will be advisory to the approval board to the rpc and the community and the rpc. The actual operation of the whole editor function will mainly be unchanged.

H

So um that's like a very high level um overview about the changes. If you want to learn more, please have a look at the document join the meeting tomorrow. The program is hoping to actually um conclude this word by end of the year, so to engage it's the right time now. Thank you very much.

C

Thanks miriam and um if there's any questions about the iab part, obviously there's going to be the iab open mic later on. uh Next up, we have colin, with the report from the irtf go icon.

G

Okay, uh thank you lars. If you can have the next slide, please.

G

Yeah, so I'm colin perkins. uh This is the irtf report next slide. Please.

G

So um yeah, so for for those who who are unfamiliar with it, the irtf uh is a research organization which runs in parallel to the the ietf and collocates its meetings um that the goal of uh work is primarily to to bring the research community uh together with the standards community and to do longer term research to complement the the shorter term standards work, that's happening in the ietf.

G

If you're not familiar with the uh with the irtf and how it differs from the ietf, then rfc 7418. I would encourage you to read, which is a really nice primer for itf participants.

I

G

Slide lists the uh the research groups, which are which are meeting and still to meet uh next slide. Please.

G

So, in addition to the research groups, we also run a couple of activities, uh one of which is the applied networking research process.

G

This is something we organize in conjunction with the internet society we get sponsorship from comcast and from mbc universal, uh and I'd certainly like to thank sponsors for that, uh and the goal of the applied networking research prize is to uh award uh to to recognize an award that the best recent uh results in applied networking research um to to bring in uh people with interesting new ideas uh that are of potential relevance to the the the itf and the standards community and to bring in upcoming people that are likely to have an impact on internet standards and technologies in the future.

G

We typically make two awards uh for the the applied networking research prize at each meeting. uh The awards for this itf meeting were made on monday, which went to rudiger berkner for his work on network specification and verification uh with a system called conflict of spec, and they went to uh sajad fuladi for his work on the salsify low latency video streaming system, video conferencing system.

G

If you missed those talks which were in the irtf open meeting earlier in this week, uh the the talks are online on the website at the uh the url listed along with the papers as well. Next slide, please.

G

And the other activity we we do, we organized the uh applied networking research workshop in conjunction with acm sitcom.

G

This workshop uh concluded earlier today uh it's a workshop, which is uh again aimed at bringing the research community the standards community together trying to get some interesting uh ideas in applied networking research and trying to encourage cross-fertilization between the communities.

G

If you missed it again, the the papers and the recordings of all the talks are available on the website. I'd encourage you to take a look. There was some really nice talks, some really nice papers over the last few days, and I'd like to thank uh android and nick and the program committee for organizing that workshop and again thank you to the sponsors, comcast akamai and acm sitcom next slide, please, okay, that's all! I have thank.

C

You you colin, um and I see raj- is there, but we're going to get to you after we're done with a few um uh brief updates. But uh it's good to see that your video and working uh john go ahead.

B

Please yeah. Thank you. um It's been a while, since I've given a report and I'm not the rfc editor, I am the temporary rfc series manager until there is an rfc editor, but I'm the closest thing you get so here is my report. Next slide, please uh next one so angelic, I'm going to talk about three things: the publishing the language and the xml. Next, please.

B

Yeah, so for more than a year we've been publishing all the rfcs using xml version version three. I think it's working reasonably well for a while. I'm sure many authors noticed that the process slowed down some partly due to the learning process, because the editing process changed quite a lot and also giant cluster 238, basically dumped the better part of a year's worth of drafts into the publication process all at once, and it took several months to chew through that.

B

But I think that's all behind us and the rpc is now editing at pretty much the same speed they they were before the transition and the turnaround time is about what it was um before we started using v3 xml, so I think we're in pretty good shape there.

B

Next, please, um I presume most of us saw the isg statement on inclusive language and the extensive debate that led up to that and we've ended up with a very lightweight process.

B

um We adopted this uh a document from nist national institute of standards and technology, which gives advice, not instructions about inclusive language, the the the the editors go through when they- and this has a list of possibly problematic words when they see a word that might be an issue they flag it, but it remains up to the authors and the stream managers and in practice sometimes the authors say: oh yeah, there's a better way to say that, and sometimes they say no, it's okay.

B

So I think again, um you know this people, people are paying attention to this, and you know the things I've seen go by have been pretty reasonable. You know, so I am pleased to say that that the inclusive language, I think, is you know we're making. You know it's making our documents better, we're not getting in the way of the publication process.

B

Next, please, um before we had version three xml, we had version two xml. We threw that we still do have version two xml, even though all of the rfcs are published during using version three most of them are still submitted using version. Two next slide. Please shows a slide yeah, so the I guess the blue part shows which drafts are submitted in v2 xml.

B

The orange is in v3 xml and a little bit of green stuff on the top is is stuff submitted, the other way um for a pup from the for a variety of reasons. I think it is unfortunate that most of us are still using v2. I think there's there's reasons for that that we're working on a big reason, for example, is the bib xml.

B

The bibliography entries haven't been working reliably with v3, but we now have a contract out to completely redo bim xml, so it'll work reliably with v3 and that problem will go away and it's definitely, as I said on the previous slide, we still have a lot of tool work to do I mean we don't have a usable, xml, diff and there's you know, there's other tools that could be a lot better to um to make it easy to both to submit an egg and v3 and to edit.

G

B

So next slide, please.

B

Yeah, um I don't expect you to read all this, but the slides are available, um so we've done a whole bunch of work with with v3 the vocabulary. The the defined v3 vocabulary um was, you know the best we could do at the time um after a year and a half we're probably going to make you know we've been looking at. How does it actually work? What changes do we need to make? So we've made we're probably going to make a few a few changes to it.

B

Most of the changes are backwards, compatible, um there's still an open question. If we make changes that are not backwards compatible, are we going to go back and revise the xml? Not the text, but the xml to uh to uh agree with with with with the updated grammar or we're just gonna, have a version break but we'll be working on that later this year, and I think next yeah.

J

B

Slide in the meantime, I encourage everybody to take a look at xml v3. It actually works pretty well, and here are a bunch of references you can use to understand what the vocabulary is and some of the tools we have and there's some mailing lists to discuss it and one final slide. So what what? What I'm going to be doing in coming months, one is to make sure everybody understands the v3 grammar changes that we are proposing, so they don't come as a surprise and in case we do something that people hate.

B

um We have another chance to think about it. Rfc 7991 and the rest of that series defines the grammar. We need to update that. um As I said, there's the question of doing.

B

Are we going to retroactively fix the xml if, when we change it and the final thing I'm doing is I'm working with jay to see if we can work on getting getting better tools, both for for writing and editing, editing internet drafts, because the tools we have are okay, but they could be a lot better and particularly when you compare them to stuff that professional xml houses use, you know, there's a lot of opportunity to make life easier for people, so that is it for my chat and I don't know whether I take questions now later or.

C

Never we we have time for a few questions if uh you are ready for it and uh we have people in the queue. um I would ask you to please keep it short and uh on the topic of the rfc editor I'll, go ahead. Try this.

E

Don't hear anything now.

K

Button, um no I'm on on the inclusive language. So um yeah I was, uh you know, pointed by itf to nist, and then this pointed back in their references to the ietf github, um you know uh repository and that.

G

K

You know more words and I think you know you're nothing. Sorry do you hear me or.

B

Yeah, I I can hear you.

K

Yeah. Okay, sorry, um no, so I I I. I think that that actually um it's good to have you know references outside when they have done more work, but uh you know I, I think what uh the folks who had done that github stuff uh started to do also looks uh quite useful, so uh keep it on.

B

Okay, yeah, I mean, if you look at, if you have to. If you look at the nist document, I mean the the github thing you're referring to, which is one of they had a list of here's. Here's, here's a bunch of um other things we looked at, but but nist has their own list of of words, which I think is actually longer than the one we had anyway. It's you know it's.

B

You know everything is a work in progress. You know if people, if people decide there is language that is either problematic, that we're not addressing or that we're over addressing like stuff that isn't problematic. You know come and talk to me about it, but as it stands now, I think we're.

K

The balance seems pretty good. Well, I think the with nist we can't really discuss, but the github issues can be discussed within the community right. So that's the benefit.

B

I mean the github thing is just somebody's private thing: it's not a you know, it's not a formal ietf thing, but anyway, let's we can talk about this offline.

C

All right next thing to queue is barry um and I'm going to cut the queue after him. John will be up um as part of the iab uh open mic later. So, if there's more discussion on this week and get to that and.

A

I see barry dropped out of the queue. Oh no yeah.

C

Curious, I just I.

A

Hand down because I um because you called on me um no, I also had a comment about the inclusive language. uh Thanks for what you said, john, uh I wanted to say I fully support the inclusive language stuff and had very good exchanges with the rfc with the rpc staff um about it, and it's all gone really well, and uh it is indeed suggestions and think about it and we'll do the right thing and the right thing is being done. Thanks.

B

Thank you yeah. I know I I saw some of the discussions you went you had and it was it was. It was really nice to see that they were both substantive and very polite, which is a standard. I would hope the entire ietf can can strive for it.

C

uh Thanks john and uh as I mentioned.

B

C

Be up later as part of the ib, so there, if there's more questions coming up for the art theater, we can take it then thanks uh next up, we have gabrielle with an update from the nom-com go ahead.

E

Hi, uh hopefully you can hear me well. I can't seem to hear anything once the mic is on, but next slide. Please.

E

Next slide, please.

E

Okay, so this is your nom-com full roster. We have 10 voting members on the left, they're selected through the well-known random process, and we have seven non-voting members in the liaisons myself and barbara who was chair last year, every one of the members here. Every one of these 17 persons is working hard for you staying up late, getting up very early, as the case may be.

E

We have all sorts of uh imaginable time zones um we're working hard for you, so I'm gonna have some asks at the end for each and every one of you next slide, please.

E

This is what we are here to do: we're here to fill uh 14 positions, 6 isg, 6, iab, one inch for trust and llc next slide. Please.

E

How did we get here so this year and and for the first time actually this year we have a special process uh called out uh in rc 8989 and, uh what's particular about it, is that we've added two more ways of qualifying people who could be volunteers.

E

The first path here attendance is what we've always used sure. Usually it's been face-to-face attendance three out of the last five meetings, but remote attendance has been uh there since last year, so we still have it. This year we added two more paths: one is working group leadership, you've been working with chair or secretary uh rather recently, and the third path to qualify as authorship, meaning you've uh written two at least two its3 rfcs, rather recently or nine internet breath. That's in the editor queue next slide.

E

Please so how did this experiment fare? um Well, let's look at the different paths.

E

um The total number of qualified volunteers this year was 116 of those 63 percent were qualified via more than one path, meaning uh folks were either through attendance or uh authorship at the same time were qualified that sort of thing there's different efficacies of the different paths path. One attendance is sufficient.

E

Basically, that qualified 113 out of 116 volunteers path, number two: the working leadership was superfluous, meaning it yes, it appeared once but path. 3 was there as well by itself. It was not uh something that that would have qualified someone, otherwise um not qualified and path. Three was there marginal it only quite qualified three volunteers, so, based on this experiment, this year uh looks like there's really no justification for change and remember change is not for free. It has to go into the data tracker. Our very good tool, support people and data track.

E

Support have to take this into account code, the appropriate paths for these. So it's it's not for free next slide. Please.

E

um So one thing I wanted to uh emphasize is that rfc 1899 calls for the isg to lead further discussion on it and uh you will see the you know: isg email at the bottom, where you can start sending feedback, especially if you have suggestions of what next steps should be. But one question I wanted to to double check here or maybe trigger further discussion with, is why only 116 volunteers, out of a total of uh 1 215 qualified persons?

E

Well, was it because of pandemic fatigue, or we did have a volunteer button that made things easier for people to volunteer. Instead of sending me an email, it came a little bit late, so that might have been it something something worse. I don't know- or maybe it's nothing to worry about, because if we go back and pass knob cons about a decade, we have even lower numbers. So I don't know what happened at that time. Maybe somebody here remembers.

E

Maybe that was identified as a problem because numbers rose so whatever we did last time, maybe we can try it again next slide. Please.

E

Next slide, please thanks, so we have a few milestones next slide. Please.

E

Next slide, please so there's basically two milestones I want to call special attention to. One is the call for nominations, that's going to happen towards the end of august, at which time uh please nominate people. You've worked with yeah. Here they are so the the first one is nomination. So yeah, please, when you see that announcement nominate people nominate yourself uh and then uh mid-october, or so we will have another announcement asking for feedback on the on the nominees.

E

These are people who you undoubtedly will have worked with know have good or bad experience. Please, please, let us know, good feedback is great. Bad feedback, of course, is also very useful. Help us reflect the community- it's not just about nominees, but about the process whatever and just to emphasize a very, very important point. All this feedback is confidential to the nomcom to the 17 people. You saw in the roster next slide. Please.

E

So here you have pointers with further information. uh One piece of information I want to leave you with is that on friday we have office hours we'll be on gather town. You can find us on the agenda so hope to see you all there. Thank you.

C

Thanks gabriel- and I think we have uh time for um a few questions for the numcom- I first want to thank the volunteers, though uh it's a really important job for the organization and it's a lot of work um and and it's you know, volunteering for this is is important, but it's it's. It's often a thankless job, and I want to make sure that we're thanking you guys for taking this on for for the health of the organization.

C

um I also want to briefly mention that so rfc 8989 calls on the isg to prepare a report to the community on the results of the experiment in consultation with gabrielle barbara and we're going to do this. If I remember correctly the deadline, we were sort of thinking about sometime early september, um so you will, you will see something written up and announced um and uh um based on what gabriel showed you in terms of data, you can, as you said, email the isg with your thoughts on whether we should.

C

I think the options that rcad 989 calls for either we stop the experiment. We can extend the experiment for another year or we can do something else and if you have thoughts on what we should be doing here, please let us know all right. I have two people in the queue spencer and mike and john's. I'm gonna already cut the queue after mike, but spencer go ahead.

L

I I wanted to say thank you uh gabe for serving the communion in the way you're serving uh and laura as well. Of course, uh one. You mentioned the thing about the cost of tooling changes, and things like that with uh with the changes to the nom-com process, um and you wouldn't know that much better than I would the thing I wanted to be sure, and mention was uh historically we've.

L

I mean there's, uh there's a really narrow window between um when you, when you are organizing the nom-com and uh when you you know when you could actually uh start using changed rules uh when we, when we did open the open list change to the nom cod process a bunch of years ago.

L

We didn't quite make it uh the year that it was approved, and so we ended up waiting like 10 10 months to be able to uh to be able to uh use that change as well, and uh so that was what was that's. You know just. I just wanted to be sure and mention that as well.

L

L

Mike correct.

M

Hi, um I crunched the numbers- and we talked about some of this on on the mailing list. The biggest decrease in the set of volunteers for this nom-com came from the individuals and small and two-party companies. If you will that participate in the ietf by far um about 30 of the a good portion decreases there so next time around, if you can spare the time people. This is a good place, good thing to volunteer and it affects a lot a lot of things going forward. So.

C

Thank you thanks. Gabriel. um Next up is uh jay and jason with the llc part of the agenda. Go.

N

O

Thanks next slide, please and next slide again, so I want to start off by thanking the ietf 111 host juniper networks for hosting this meeting. As lars said, it's good that companies understand the value proposition of being hosts of fully online meetings and going to take this opportunity now just to um give raj um ivanka the chance to come back and do his presentation from earlier over to you.

P

Raj, I'm very happy to join you. Can you hear me uh I'll, join you as a on behalf of juniper networks, who's hosting the ipf and, as you all know, juniper has been very active in ikea for a long time.

P

My own association with ietf started as a graduate student long long time back when I was a student of that commercial.

P

I had the fortune to be associated with working groups such as rsvp services with cathy nichols.

P

uh I started two working groups, one called rap, which led to a protocol called cops and forces, there's a precursor to open flow before doing uh forwarding and control element separation. So I think very happy to find you. I think uh we at juniper strongly believe that the ietf culture and the methods of making decisions using consensus are the democratic principles that we strongly support.

P

I also like the way that ips is managed. I used to I still remember fred baker, who used to wear a t-shirt on the first day of the idea, which said lead, follow or get out of the way, and I really liked that at times, like mike's christian, on the chat- and these are the stalwarts right here, so whatever small role I played I'm very proud of that, my only encouragement or a request to ietf community is that you guys are responsible for stewardship of the ip architecture.

P

There are lots of new noises about starting alternatives, ip ip has which took the test of time for a good reason. So I want to thank you all for continued stewardship of ip architecture. Please keep it up and thank you last.

C

Well, thank you raj. It's it's! uh It's always good to see that it's your favorite large organization, like ludicrous networks, knows the itf and has participated in the past. This is sort of really showing like how how far in some sense, the internet and the itf have come over the years. So thank.

G

You very much for.

C

Your long support of the ietf.

O

Yes, thank you raj, though, so that was rajka. The cto of juniper networks, one of our global hosts and the um host of this meeting and juniper have also just extended their um global host agreement further and blogged about that and their support of the itf, which is excellent. Thank you next slide, please.

O

So thank you to our equipment and services, sponsors, um cisco, juniper and webex. The value of equipment that um cisco and juniper provide for us for managing these meetings is really quite extraordinary and the services as well. So, thank you very much for that next slide. Please.

O

This time round, we have two gold diversity and inclusivity, sponsors, akamai and cisco.

O

Our new sponsorship program is based around some values that companies can choose, which particular values they wish to support to align with their own internal values and we're seeing a lot of support on the diversity inclusivity. So thank you, akamai and cisco for that next slide. Please.

O

And thank you to our bronze diversity, inclusivity, sponsors, comcast and donuts, and I can to our running code, sponsor I can as well and uh to verisign who've come in as a local sponsor, um even though we're online, um and uh that's very good of them, because we're moving these things uh forward. That way right. So thank you again to all of our sponsors. This has been a very well supported. Meeting previous meetings have had some good support, but we're really getting momentum behind with our sponsors supporting these online meetings. Thank you next slide. Please.

O

So to thank the many generous volunteers, the code, sprint volunteers, long list of those we hold those a bit further out from the meetings than when we have in-person meetings, but we're still holding the code sprints and for the knock volunteers and, of course, to the organizations that support the long volunteers and make it possible for them to dedicate so much time to working on itf. Thank you next slide.

O

Please, and then we have quite a team in the background um secretariat team who many are aware of and who are available inside gather dot town for anything that you need to talk about um the knock team who have been working hard and, of course, the meet echo team, who you will see um in many of the sessions working on things.

O

The tools team continues to go strong. So thank you to people who work on that and to our contractors and staff there and the llc has grown slightly, and so thank you to nlc staff next slide. Please.

O

So um next week we are making the decision about ietf, 112, madrid and then announcing that on the monday afterwards. Obviously this is uh a difficult time for us all. So we're not sure where that whether we were going ahead with that, the one commitment we will make is that, if we're not able to go ahead with it, then we will rebook madrid for a proper in-person meeting at some point in the future, just so that madrid doesn't miss out in that way, um there are still sponsorship opportunities available.

O

So please contact sponsorship at iatf.org for anything there next slide. Please.

O

So thank you to all of our global hosts. As a reminder, global hosts are sign up with us generally for six or nine years.

O

They make a significant annual contribution and they then host one or more meetings during their time as a host, um and so together they provide us significant income that we need in order to run meetings. So thank you to cisco, comcast, ericsson, the huawei juniper networks, nbc universal and nokia. Thank you next slide. Please.

O

So this is our upcoming list of meetings. um We of course, have madrid and then next year, bangkok and philadelphia, um and we're all I'm sure, desperately hoping that we will definitely be able to hold those in person and no doubt about those um 115 in europe. We were spent a long time working with a particular venue only for that for the first time ever to um break down, and so we're now putting in place a backup venue but which we hope to announce quite soon.

O

116 in asia, that's delayed by covid.

O

We have somewhere largely set up, but in order for us to be able to finish off the negotiations and things, we need their tourism industry to restart which it hasn't yet properly restarted, or the conference industry at least and uh 119 in asia. We um have a potential um for that as well. So these things are moving forward quite well, next slide, please!

O

So here's the breakdown of um the number of people that have come along and how that meets up against our budget. um So we've done reasonably well all together against budget.

O

Again, we have people who deliberately use the late registration in order to be able to pay us more. Thank you very much for that. That's very good of you and we've had many more um one day passes than we expected this time around. Thank you next slide. Please.

O

And so here are the um uh four staff members, so you have um uh me on the left, I'm looking slightly younger than I do now. Greg wood who's been around for a long time, direct communications and operations, and then we too have our two new starters: lee berkeley shaw who's.

O

Our director of development um development in this context means fundraising of things and lee berkeley has a long history of this having previously been with um center for democracy and technology, and we have kasara ratnayaki, who is our senior software development engineer, who's um an open source um developer um skilled in full stack development through python javascript and like and who is now beginning to take over some of the previous tools work? So that's it for our team next slide. Please.

O

Q

All right great, thank you, jay appreciate it. um uh Welcome uh next slide, please. This is the uh llc board report, uh so no changes here from the last meeting uh still the same folks here um from the march meeting, so you can see all of our pictures here next slide. Please.

Q

And these are our upcoming board meetings. um One note here is that on august 11th we have our second of two. I assa ii retrospective webinars.

Q

um So as you know, that consultation is open, I'll mention it again in just a moment but um worth bearing in mind that uh that is slightly different from a normal board meeting uh in terms of agenda and so on. So um the other ones are typical board meetings in advance next slide.

Q

Since the last meeting we've completed our 2020 financial review and audit had another second year now clean audit report, which was great news thanks sean for coordinating all of that with the auditors. We also um recently began the iasa ii three-year retrospective.

Q

So for folks that don't know what that is. In essence, when we had um this uh structure in place, we were asked to do a retrospective after three years. uh So I'm hearing I'm breaking up a little bit. Sorry about that. We've done a strengths, weaknesses, uh type of assessment as well, and we formalized uh an email policy for staff accounts next slide.

Q

And these are the financials as they stand today. The only note here really is the difference between the revenue and the budget versus actual, and that was explained at the end of last fiscal year because of when the I suck contribution was recognized, which actually came. um You know late in the fiscal year instead of in this year, as expected, uh next slide.

Q

And there's our contact information. I think that should be all thank you and lars. I don't know if you want me to take uh folks in the queue I see. We have one person.

C

I was gonna suggest we wait, because we have the llc open mic later on, unless it's bertrand, spencer I'll. Let you decide.

O

All right, thank you, um so I'm just going to present the results of the recent itf community survey that we've conducted the we have a draft report out and the consultation on that is still open for a while longer and we'll then issue a final report. The presentation I'm going to give now includes changes that have already been recommended to us next slide. Please next slide, please so it had a threefold purpose.

O

First was to give us some demographics around the itf, then some planning data that can be used by various parts of itf leadership and then a the first part of a time series so that we can then begin to assess the natural changes affecting the ietf and the effectiveness of major programs, organizational changes and leadership actions next slide. Please.

O

So four key design principles. We wanted wide distribution, so we sent it to every subscriber to an ietf list, even if that list had been idle for a number of years, which is 56 000 addresses in total.

O

We wanted it to be simple for people to respond to with a careful language, no opinion options, and only one mandatory question wanted it to be actionable and direct, which meant no free text answers. We couldn't read through two thousand of those and make those actionable and um no questions about um fuzzy perceptions that um we can really deal with, um and we also wanted it to be repeatable and relevant. uh So we didn't ask questions that could be asked in other ways.

O

Next slide. Please.

O

So we had 2032 valley responses, giving a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent, but the big disclaimer, of course, is that the respondents of this survey were self-selected not randomly chosen, and the details of the population are not well known enough for us to determine if this sample is truly representative.

O

um So this is a taking out face value um use it, as you see fit type survey next slide. Please.

O

So key findings for the organization. First, great news here: the itf mostly delivers its mission and principles, um quality and relevance of our rfcs are good. Focus of the work is acceptable. Consensus is strong and the ability to share views is acceptable. So some core things about how the iatf works are validated by this.

O

The ietf processes are mostly acceptable, with the standout exception, being the slowness of the entire itf process, and then we have an issue with mass communication, which is partly a bootstrapping problem that not enough people know about ietf announce, but we also have other more complex issues about what content people want to see and how they like to receive their content next slide. Please.

O

So here is a little chart um using um coding me, which is explained in the reports. Higher means that people prefer it more. It shows different ways about the people, wish to be informed of their activities and shows you by age, and so, if you look at blog posts and you look at social media posts- I mean it.

O

It makes me smile just how you see that distribution of age across those um the older you are the least you prefer blog posts and social media posts, but in the top right, the strong cluster of people who prefer.

O

People who are prefer email and to answer the question: yes, we have an under 18 age bracket. We asked that question. We had two people, I think come back in that and that's important for us to understand things such as the ability of people to consent to contracts and things like that. Next slide.

O

O

So key finders about people, um the itf has a sense of community, um but only just and people don't feel that they can recommend the itf which I'll show you on a slide in a moment, and the itf has a big problem with gender females make up.

O

10 percent of the itf report community, which is much less than both, of course, general population and um employees within it-related fields, and are disproportionately deterred by the culture of the itf, less likely to feel treated the same as the rest of the community as males less likely to feel their contributions are valued and less likely to feel that the behaviour of other participants is acceptable. So we have a problem there.

O

We have a smaller problem regionality, but we have no problem with age next slide.

O

O

So um this is using a net promoter score, which is a a methodology, may not be familiar with where we ask people to score from zero to ten. um Would you how likely I to recommend iitf participation to a friend or colleague, those who score nine or ten are promoters, and then the scale is down below and you generally subtract promoter detractors from promoters, and in this case we have a negative score, which is terrible in net promoter, score terminology or methodology for working that out.

O

So while people um have a lot of positive things to say about being here, they don't really want to inflict it on others, which is very interesting next slide. Please.

O

And here are some examples of um the gender spit. I talked about the ability to share my views and treated the same as the rest of the itf community. Next slide. Please.

O

So uh key findings on participation, the principal people participating for the benefit of the internet is true, but it's not the strongest factor um come back to the minute, but the strongest factor is actually people for their own personal development. Learning the foundations of people participate as individuals is very complex.

O

It's partially supported, but only partially supported and more work is needed to understand that support for new modes of participation, such as issue, trackers or instant messaging, is limited and very age dependent and two key pillars of using email for everything and using english as a standard language have very strong support. Surprisingly strong support next slide. Please.

O

So um why do did you participate in the itf? um This question was asked differently of different people.

O

My personal interest is, you can see at the top and then to make the internet work better and then professional development, um and you can see two of the interesting bits about my job, allowing me to my job requiring me to um my job, allowing me to coming out significantly higher there um so which is interesting, because we have a number of people who believe that there are people who maneuver into jobs that enable them to work within the itf next slide. Please.

O

And key findings. Finally, about the wider environment, we find that the itf is a very important part of a well-connected ecosystem and that people think it compares very positively compared to other standard setting organizations. So again, this is using net promoter score methodology here and the promoters. The minus detractors gives us a very high score there for how important is itf development of the internet next slide. Please.

O

So, finally, just about the next steps of this survey, um the survey was conducted um on behalf of the isg and um with some itf llc concerns addressed in there as well, and it will be used by the isg and llc over the next year in order to plan and carry out work, and I'm hoping that we'll see the survey readily referenced in decision making to ensure that we have a data-driven approach.

O

What I'm particularly hoping is that some things will be um no longer um sources of angst, because we know that we will have um that evidence. Is there not an issue and other areas that are sometimes dismissed will be opened up a little bit better.

O

One action that we've already taken is to add a sign up, link to the I to itf announce, so they mainly list their welcome email, and this survey will be repeated annually with some adjustments so that we build up the um time series of data, but we're almost certainly going to do a big cleaning up, exercise and mailing list before then leading to a smaller total population, and that will affect things in future next slide. Please that's it.

O

So, thank you all that took part and if you wish to discuss this further or provide feedback on it, then on the admin discuss mailing list. Please thank you over to you lars.

C

Thanks jay, um I think this brings us to the open mic part. The next slide right. This is the isg. Mics are open. Please get in line and ask your questions, and if you can turn your video on.

C

Too, and as a reminder, there's an open mic coming for the iab and for the llc after this. So if you have topics for them hold, this is the isg.

C

And we'll go ahead, please.

R

Hi uh lars, um I'm not sure if this is uh correctly addressed to the isg, but I will ask you know: you'll know that redirect me. If not, um I noticed that there have been quite a few issues raised on some of the different mailing lists over the last few weeks um on the use of uh github versus uh mailing lists and whether different working groups are getting the balance right now.

R

It seems to me from the comments that, for whatever reason, some of the current working practices uh uh are not satisfactory without making judgments as to in what direction, uh and I wondered if you thought this is something that the isg needs to re-evaluate um to, to give more consistent guidance across the working groups.

C

Yeah thanks for the question so this this came up at least one issue, or one one spot where it came up, was on gender dispatch and it was my individual draft.

C

um So we we had a gita working group that closed that uh defined some guidelines for how working groups um can use github in the itf and it sort of leaves us in a position where each individual working group basically decides for themselves, if they're using github and how they're using github- and I guess what what I can't recall- whether we had a discussion about- is whether a working group that doesn't make a active decision, what what goes for them right so gen dispatch, for example.

C

In this case, as far as I know, doesn't have a stated policy for how good that is to be used. And so, in this particular case I have an individual draft that I use github for and I posted a link with a pull request that contained a proposed change to the document.

C

Discussion happened on github and there was some confusion on whether this was wanted or not, and why it wouldn't be an email, I'll point out that for working groups that basically configure githubs as an organization, it's possible to uh set up a mailing list such that all um the discussion on github gets reflected. There.

C

uh Quick did this uh for the quick dash issues mailing list you've seen it mentioned earlier, because we excluded it from the stats that alvaro showed because it's by far the most busy itf list and it's sort of automatically generated email mostly, but at least it allows people that don't want to interact with github to at least follow the discussion. But it requires a working group to actively have a github organization and configure it a certain way. So it's not something you can do for an individual draft, which is a little bit of a problem.

C

um So I'm wondering if other people have an opinion on this. One thing that I've seen proposed is whether the github working group should be reopened with an extended charter or revised charter. That's certainly something we could do, um but I um I'm not sure how much consensus there would be for doing something more than we did in the existing github working group a while ago, because the the community is quite split on on the question of whether github should be used and how much um is he brandon and cuban?

C

Are you on the same topic or is this a different question.

S

uh It's uh related, it's really good, then go ahead, uh so I wonder if this would be less of an issue if there were an ietf hosted issue, tracker and uh git host available.

C

So it's been discussed um and I think, for example, we even have a get lab license for the itf that we could take into action.

C

um One of the arguments that has been brought up is that being on github as the sort of large place where a lot of open source gets developed, makes it easy for people who are already on github to participate on itf documents and we've sort of totally seen this for the quick working group where individuals that hadn't participated in the itf found the repository somehow and opened issues and made comments and and then we never saw them again.

C

So this sort of drive by um participation is something that github enables and if we would host our own setup that wouldn't be possible. We can certainly, you know, have a discussion about how frequent that happens and how important it is for your organization. But it's been brought up and discussed. I don't think there was consensus on it, but gitlab would be something that's available and other git hosting solutions exist too.

S

I see thank you, I see it. Thank you.

C

Jeff houston, brandon you're still in the queue. I will remove you if you want to talk again. Okay, now you're gone.

T

Jeff go ahead. Okay, I'm bringing up, I suppose, a question that arose in the cider ops working group earlier today or yesterday, depending on where you live in this world, and it's actually about what running code actually means.

T

The cider ops working group is certainly grappling with that. Taking the lead from other working groups. That appeared to say, you really need implementation reports in order to advance a draft, but in some ways that's not quite good enough these days and what we find, of course, is the internet is working at such a scale, that it has its own stasis and resistance to incorporating what we call experimentation.

T

Now, when you say this has implementation, do you mean this? Spec is good enough for independent implementations to interoperate full stop.

T

In other words, the spec is a reasonable guideline for code, but as to whether you should deploy it or not, or it's a good thing e someone else's problem- or you could say this specification- creates independent implementations that operate at scale and makes the internet better, and you should build it now, there's a whole bunch of different opinions out there.

T

The dns certainly appears in those working groups to take the position that yeah internet drafts are purely ephemeral, I'll implement it when it's an rfc and not before, because you know it's it's hard to chase butterflies, whereas others appear to be saying all the rigor, and indeed even some element of acceptance of this is a good idea, should come at the working group and draft level and what should come out of the ietf are rfcs that bless history.

T

This is a tough question and I think punting this to individual working groups to actually resolve severally, diversely and independently, is entirely wrong for the ietf. These mixed signals are not only confusing. I tend to suggest that they create such a mixed quality of outcome. It d actually devalues the rfcs lowest common denominator. Rules tend to apply, what's the ietf iesg think about this, and are they willing to actually reopen what running code actually means for the ietf and its working groups? Thank you.

C

Thanks jeff: does anybody um on the idf who participated uh in this group want to speak to this? I see alvaro wants to start to share. No, yes, go ahead.

F

If I'm with myself everywhere, I can actually say something yeah. This has come up before and I think that um yes, ideally, we would have written code for many things before we publish uh there are some working groups jeff that I know you're familiar with idr, for example, that requires two independent implementations. We've had a ton of discussions uh with the chairs and others about what does an implementation mean in general?

F

You know we want a an actual vendor who provides backbone software, for example, when we're talking about bgp right. The last thing we want to do is break bgp, however, and and let's go see to your point- about leaving independent working groups to make the decisions, in my mind at least, I do think that is the right way to do it.

F

The reason is that different working groups serve different markets, different segments and not all of them- are going to go. Do implementations before things are standardized many working groups that work, maybe with governments, for example, these.

F

Manufacturers are going to wait until there's an rfc until the spec has been completely approved because before they do um implementations, so I think that that the part of the issue here is that one size doesn't fit all. Now that we have, I don't know, 120 working groups.

F

It is very, very hard to come up with with one solution. That's going to fit.

C

Everyone thanks so much um next up in the queue is dominique dominica. Sorry.

U

Yeah, thank you. um I just wanted to go back to the uh the presentation on the survey and uh I noticed in the chat. There were a couple questions that I was going to ask out loud. um One.

C

Is what could I ask you to wait with that until the llc is up, because, oh.

N

Yeah! Sorry about that.

U

Okay, thank you.

C

Jeff's back in the queue go ahead.

T

Go up to alvaro here in in making the observation that individual working groups have to interpret what they see as running code in their own at times unique way. I actually don't think that flexibility to that degree serves the ietf in a general sense.

T

I actually think you need to refine what we mean by running code and work out the difference between a spec that is implementable and a spec. That is a good idea for customers to use and work out. How running code relates to that, because at the moment, as I said, I think that degree of variation is actually harmful to this process and the quality of its output and simply saying it's somebody else's problem working group should make their own way through.

T

This mess isn't exactly the degree of helpful guidance that normally, I would expect from you worthy folk on the iesg. Thank you.

V

So jeff, I would say I mean you're, asking a very important question, which is: what are the means we can arrive at to have confidence in the specs. The specs that we're going to publish, I think, certainly code, is one of those, but one of the other things I would.

V

uh I would kind of emphasize you know with the enthusiasm that you have is that, for example, formal verification in the security area has been transformative to make sure that that the spec or even the code that we're producing that's that's those reference implications, has really changed the game for us and largely table stakes for the introduction of new protocols for us and to the question of scale. I know.

V

Prior working groups have also elicited the academic community for things like mod sim to to make sure that we understand those protocols at scale as well without the deployment. So I think, there's a number of levers. We should be pushing for to make sure the quality is high.

V

C

Thanks uh john clenson is next: go ahead, john.

J

Jeff, I'm very sympathetic, the argument you're raising, I think it's important, but uh it seems to me that the argument you're making in the distinctions you're asking for, are exactly why we started down the path of a uh of a three-step standards process about a century ago. And I note that, for better or worse, we've never been make that.

J

Work I wish we.

C

Could all right? Thank you.

C

K

K

So um having been on, you know both the development deployment and the standardization side, I think I'd like to chime into what alvaro said with respect to that.

K

You can't simply say one size fits all right so, depending on where you're actually working in the standardization, the you know overhead to just do an experiment in implementing something that ultimately turns out not to be useful, has been shown to be very, very expensive in cases, and so um you actually, you know, may want to have standardization pre-go the implementation to really work out quirks before you do investments right. So obviously, that's not everywhere. True right, the more every something is, you know very easy to implement software.

K

The more the opposite is true, um but I certainly don't think that you know one size fits all.

C

Thanks carlos um and I see an empty queue for the isg, any further questions for us.

C

Okay, thank you. All uh next up is, I think, the iab open mic. So can we get the next slide? Please and the next slide- and this is your iab and the miria is there and the question.

H

Yes, I'm back. This is the ib. We don't do an introduction round because of time, but you can see faces and names and we can start the queue.

H

And this is also the point of time we can ask questions to john again, if you.

H

C

Going once andrew, yes andrew.

R

I was waiting to see if dominique was coming in then, but I think she's, maybe on the next one. um I I have two questions.

R

If I may uh first is, uh uh I think the excellent uh rfc889 uh informational uh document on the internet, his friend users, talked about uh the importance of multi-stakeholder uh consultation, um and I wonder if there been any subsequent thoughts um on actually developing a process to do this, um because I think there are certainly a number of uh working groups where there's a need for multi-stakeholder consultation, and I think it potentially becomes quite a barrier to doing it if, if each develops its own process, so some guidance on how um uh I think would be welcome um and then, secondly, to think about my other question, uh I think last time I raised a question around uh so concerns around centralization um and and how some of the proposed standards working through the system seem to be in danger of making that worse, not better and whether there are any plans to assess the centralization impacts of new standards before they're introduced alongside security impacts.

R

I don't think I've seen progress on that and would welcome views on. What's going to be done to actually sort of take centralization risk seriously, thank you.

H

Okay, let me uh start on your first part, um so I don't think we you know we have like a specific process for consulting multi-stakeholder um organizations or parties, um but we do discuss a lot um on the one hand, how to better manage our resources, how to better outreach, how to better utilize them how to have a better overview what's happening at all, and we also have some discussion about how to improve our outreach, and there are multiple dimensions of this. This is like advertising.

H

What the itf is doing in other organizations getting feedback getting people involved and getting new people involved also attracted to the idea, but these are all different um aspects with different answers and we're just you know, starting the discussion.

H

So I don't have like an answer to you, but it's still on our radar, but it's also not like an easy um solution like how to improve the situation here, it's more in the assessment phase. I don't know if somebody else from the ibm wants to add something.

H

Tell me yeah I'd, be.

W

Happy um also, can I turn into the second half of the question here: yeah.

H

And let me figure out if yari wants he's, probably also here for the second half. So, let's, let's go on with that.

W

Yeah um yeah, just for the uh point about you know: what can we do for concerns about sexualization, etc? um It is definitely something that we've discussed as the ib and you know, retreats, etc.

W

Well, just one of the practical items that we've been going through an exercise of that we're still working on is a list of things centralization, just being one small part of that uh that the ib should be reviewing during uh buff chartering, working group, chartering anytime, we have new work coming in just as a way to kind of look at kind of the bigger picture of how do these pieces fit together and are there things that may not come up in other types of review that we think should be on the list that the iab comes back to so that's definitely one of the items that's in there and at some point we'll formalize this list and then it'll be public, but we're already thinking about it as we're.

W

Looking at new work coming into that atf.

H

And then yari, I'm pretty sure you want to add something on this point you can just you know, turn on your video.

I

Yeah so tommy said basically what I wanted to say, but maybe add a few things. One is that I think many of us actually do care quite a bit in the itf and iap as well about centralization consolidation issues, um but it's sort of difficult item to deal with. You have to discuss the specific of of these cases.

I

So yesterday, for instance, we had a big discussion on impacts of discovery or not in one of the buffs that we had this week, and uh you know whether there's an issue depends on exactly what the use cases are and how we end up using a particular technical design. So so I think it's at the top of our minds, uh or at least it's one of the things that we care about, but we have to discuss the specific cases uh in in detail and there's like no direct golden rule. That says you know do this.

I

I

H

Wes, you want to add something.

X

Yeah, so um one thing to note about you know the internet being for the end users right. One of the things that we are doing right now is actually going to be holding a workshop on measuring network quality for end users, and that is right. In line with with our goal to you know, figure out how do we get a better sample rate for what how things are impacting end users right?

X

um The call for papers for that is open right now, it's linked off of the ieb website and I'd strongly encourage people to submit papers for it. The due date is actually august 2nd, which is coming up quickly, but they don't need to be long papers. Just what are your thoughts around that and you can go, read the call for papers I'll drop it in chat too thanks.

H

So, as andrew just mentioned, chad that he would like to have more guidance, um maybe send us a separate email to the iab and we can figure out what you're actually looking for and if that is covered, uh somehow by our lease or management or, if you're, actually looking for something else. That would be helpful thanks um and then seren uh were you um trying to to join the queue or we can see a video.

H

Okay, so then we have more space on the queue. If anybody else wants a question.

C

Okay doesn't look like it, which leaves us a few minutes um for the llc board. If you can go to the next slide and then I guess the next slide afterwards. Thank you and.

J

This is the llc.

C

Board um I want to ask dominique to come back to the front of the queue um dash is already perfect. Thank you. Thank.

U

Q

U

Sorry about the.

Q

U

With the jet lag and everything um yeah so basically going back to the survey as I was mentioning um just a double a question on what is being done to potentially address the gender issues and also the issue that was brought up in parallel about um feeling. uh Welcome or you know, inclusivity thanks.

O

Well, so I go with that. First then, um at this stage dominique, um if we're just getting the results together, um the response obviously needs to have part iesg response and part llc response.

O

I can't speak the isg lars will do that within the llc. When the consultation is finished and we've got the final report out there we'll be having some form of conversation about that jason. Did you want to add anything?

O

No, so I mean it is something that we recognize and um do take seriously. It's something we've been um talking about for quite some time, which is why the questions appeared the way they did in the survey, because we wanted to make sure that we had the data to um uh validate what, for many of us was an instinctive um understanding and so taking that forward. Now I think we've got a um a very clear.

O

Mandate, I think, across the organization, though we have course different roles in the organization as to how we do that, but there's a clear mandate to understand that and do something about that last. Did you want to add anything.

C

Yeah, I can only say that I mean the results. Are that came in a few weeks ago um and and the isg was obvious in the ramp up to the itf meeting, so we've sort of looked at it and we've discussed it certainly, but we haven't had since simply have the time to sit down on a chat to like dig down and decide what we're gonna do with these results.

C

But I agree with jay and others that um the results are sort of eye-opening and I think they certainly motivate an action uh by the organization and by the community to uh improve the scores that we have in some of those categories um I was. I was quite surprised that the outcome is that.

C

C

G

C

Questions for the llc.

C

Board, it doesn't look like it in that case. um Can we go next slide just to make sure that I don't forget anything.

Q

One quick comment: there was some discussion in the chat that I just wanted to make sure folks took note of. um It was about the mechanisms by which people can provide feedback to the board on the iasa 2 retrospective and, as noted in the blog, we're happy to take it via email on admin discuss via github um the upcoming second webinar or um office hours or gather town this week.

Q

um Any of those are fine, and you know if you have some other method, you'd like to have a one-on-one, we're happy to do that as well.

C

Okay, thanks next slide. Please, or is this the last.

C

One I'm hoping it's the last one. I think it's the last one, um so that brings us to the end of the plenary. Thank you all very much, uh especially my fellow europeans, for whom it is uh approaching uh sunrise out there um and uh enjoy the rest of your itf week, and I certainly hope we get to see each other in person again very soon.

C

Good night and good day see you.

C

C