Subject: Re: IETF logistics

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:49:40 GMT

Ran,

Everything you say contains truth, but to be optimistic in this holiday
season, in some ways we are doing much better than one might expect.
Here is a larger context...

THEN:
	- The WWW had not been created, or was just in its infancy.

	- Commercialization of the Internet was just beginning.  The
	  major users of the Internet were from the academic community,
	  as a result of NSFnet.  The .com part of the DNS space was
	  not much used.  The DNS was used only for host names.

	- The major vendors represented in IETF were mostly small
	  companies --e.g., Cisco, Proteon, FTP Software, ...  The big
	  guys like IBM and DEC were treating the Internet something
	  like a rare disease -- to be tolerated and watched from afar,
	  in case something unexpected (like continued growth) should
	  happen.  IETF was not even on the radar screens of the Bell
	  heads.

	- The Internet researchers who had developed TCP/IP and
	  friends were still significant players in the IETF.
	  The heirs of this group, the IAB, set Internet standards

NOW:
	(Left as an exercise to the reader, but here's a clue: it's
	a different world out there!)

Given this context, it actually seems somewhat remarkable to me that
the IETF has so far been able to adapt to changing circumstances
(without becoming another ISO or ITU).

Bob Braden

---

From: Ian King <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:25:25 -0800

IMHO that's an excellent suggestion.  It's been my experience that when you
state that the draft is itself an agenda item, previously resolved issues
often get rehashed, sometimes contrary to the clear consensus of the list.
This strategy would also allow less opportunity for those who haven't read
the draft to turn the session into a tutorial.  -- Ian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 9:26 AM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: IETF logistics

> I would suggest that chairs try setting the agenda around issues, not
> around drafts themselves.  The main point of the face-to-face meetings
> is to resolve issues that cannot be resolved by mail.  Put those on the
> agenda, and let the combatants present as much tutorial information as
> they feel is necessary to make their point -- but don't set up the
> editor of a particular draft to give a presentation first, followed by
> discussion.  Don't even put the draft title on the agenda, just in the
> preliminary mail sent out before the meeting.  Thoughts?

sounds good to me!

randy

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:13:46 -0800

Just to be clear, Pete's idea does not preclude giving newcomers to 
the meeting context. Instead of the 5 minutes for agenda bashing and 
then straight into presentations, the WG chair can spend 15 minutes 
saying what the group is doing, where the WG is and is not meeting 
its charter, and the status of the drafts in front of the group. At 
that point, viewers (as compared to participants) will know better 
whether or not they want to stay and will also have some idea of why 
the agenda looks like it does.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:20:41 -0700 (MST)

> Let me give you an example of where this didn't work recently. At San 
> Diego, we had back-to-back meetings ...

There is another solution for real WG participants.  Simply abandon the
meetings to what by someone's estimate is the overwhelming majority of
observers and other dead weights.  Do not attend if are in the minority
who cares mostly about the protocols.  Give the meetings to those who
want to educate, be educated, and generally rub shoulders with and as
super duper internet engineers.  They won't notice your absence.

Even better, save a lot of time and effort by the IAB, IESG, etc. and
hire Comdex or InterOp to run the meetings.  InterOp (or whatever it's
called these days) has long offered tutorials.  Moreover, InterOp has
often hired IETF participants to do the teaching.

Instead, participate in protocol work by mail.  As others have pointed
out, the mailing list consensus is the the only consensus that matters.
When something is decided in the IETF meetings, the odds are about 50%
that the decision is wrong, contrary to the mailing list consensus,
and will be reversed.  The classic example of that syndrome was
the decision of the IAB in Japan to pick the ISO OSI suite for IPng.

Note that I am not being sarcastic.

Note also that I know that is no chance that the participants (not
to mention self-described observers) who are now complaining might
take my advice.

Finally note that complaints about hordes of the pointy haired,
marketeers, and other non-participants jamming the meetings are
nearly 15 years old.  That ancient IETF that didn't have such
problems, or at least didn't have such complaints was either in
some other universe or didn't last more than a year or two.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:34:13 -0500 (EST)

> No I-D editor should ever have the need to 
> make up a PowerPoint slide show.

I strongly disagree

one of the most successful methods I've seen is to have a series of
slides (powerpoint or not) each with one issue tersley described
and a few options listed - this is used to focus the discussion about
the specific issues - it is far easrier to understand an issue if you
have text in front of you

Scott

h