Subject: Two clarifications re

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:43:27 -0400

1) A message that was in response to my "From Leslie Daigle:" message got sent to ietf-announce by mistake. This should not have happened - ietf-announce is not a discussion list. Bug reported.

2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being hired now is a consultant to help with the activity of setting up the administrative structures we need for the IETF at this point in time. Not the permanent general manager of the IETF administrative support function.

                  Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 16:13:17 -0700

Harald,

HA> 2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being hired now is a consultant to
HA> help with the activity of setting up the administrative structures we need for the IETF at
HA> this point in time. Not the permanent general manager of the IETF administrative support
HA> function.

This means that you are proceeding with the changes.

Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific plan that
was reviewed and approved by the IETF for these structural changes, and
when did the IETF approve it?

A separate question: To what extent is this effort taking already-scarce
IETF resources and serving as a distraction from making the IETF produce
better material in a more timely fashion?

Clarifications would be appreciated.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:33:31 -0400

Dave,

Let me respond to this, not from Harald's perspective, but from
that as a semi-outside observer who is, I think, as concerned as
you are, about wasting time and resources on non-critical-path
efforts and about the IESG, IAB, or their respective Chairs
going off half-cocked.  

First, while I wasn't there, every report I've gotten from
people who were (including both those who were happy about it
and those who weren't), was that the outlines of this were
presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus was that
people should move ahead with this process, focusing on drawing
the administrative models and financial sources together as
first steps in rationalizing the IETF's relationships with its
professional support organizations.   Nothing has appeared on
the IETF list, or in any other place that I'm following, that
would convince me that there is community consensus against
their proceeding, and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt has been
posted since February and hasn't seemed to draw much negative
attention either.   We approve standards on far less
demonstration of consensus than that. We have  some, I think
considerable, evidence that a large fraction of the participants
in the IETF have concluded that, while they want these external
administrative processes to run smoothly, efficiently, and well,
they lack the interest and/or expertise to want to be deeply
involved in them.  Given that, what sort of public cheer do
think you is needed?

Whether or not it is critical path is, IMO, a separate question.
Even if one ignores the more general issues raised in RFC 3716
and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt (and without discussing their
relevancy or importance), we are in a situation in which we have
a shrinking resource base relative to costs.  Neither the slope
of meeting attendance nor that of unrestricted contributions to
ISOC for the IETF is positive.  While a number of improvements
have been made, most of the costs arise from a fixed base, e.g.,
fewer meeting attendees may mean lowered cookie costs, but
doesn't lower the significant meeting costs, much less all of
the other secretariat costs.   In that environment, having
separate pools of funds, with no ability for the folks who the
IETF community holds responsible for keeping things going to
make priority decisions and move things around is, well, nuts.
And those financial structure issues could bring us grinding to
a halt -- or increase meeting fees to the point that they would
become a significant barrier to participation for some people.
I think that makes it critical path -- if we grind to a halt, or
reach the stage at which only the very well-supported or
professional standardizers can afford to participate, we are in
very bad trouble: certainly that situation wouldn't contribute
to our getting better substantive results out faster.

Of course, most of that is discussed in RFC 3716.  If it wasn't
sufficiently clear, then people should have been complaining
about it on the IETF list before it was published as an RFC.  My
recollection, although I may be confused, is that it was even
Last Called.  Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen an
outpouring of comments and complaints about its content.

Just my opinion.
best,
    john

--On Saturday, 05 June, 2004 16:13 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Harald,
> 
> HA> 2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being
> hired now is a consultant to HA> help with the activity of
> setting up the administrative structures we need for the IETF
> at HA> this point in time. Not the permanent general manager
> of the IETF administrative support HA> function.
> 
> 
> Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific
> plan that was reviewed and approved by the IETF for these
> structural changes, and when did the IETF approve it?
> 
> A separate question: To what extent is this effort taking
> already-scarce IETF resources and serving as a distraction
> from making the IETF produce better material in a more timely
> fashion?
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:43:56 -0700

John,

JCK>   the outlines of this were
JCK> presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus was that
JCK> people should move ahead with this process,

1. Attendance by the on-going IETF pool of participants was _very_ poor.
Any attempt to claim that positive feedback at that event is somehow
representative of the larger community should raise some deeper
questions about IETF process. (And by the way, claiming that that room
showed strong support does not match my own perception or the perception
of quite a few other attendees.)

2. An "outline" is very different from a detailed specification and I
carefully stated that Harald's note appears to indicate that things have
moved beyond consideration and into actual implementations. If that is
not what is happening, then Harald should explain what actual is
happening.

3. Presentation and discussion at a face-to-face IETF meeting is never
an IETF decision, remember? What happened to the explicit confirmation
with the _real_ IETF plenary, namely the online community?

JCK>   Nothing has appeared on
JCK> the IETF list, or in any other place that I'm following, that
JCK> would convince me that there is community consensus against
JCK> their proceeding, and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt has been
JCK> posted since February and hasn't seemed to draw much negative
JCK> attention either.

1. So this is one of those "proceed if there is no massive objection"
kinds of decisions? Shouldn't a fundamental change in IETF
administrative structure carry an expectation of rather more proactive,
broad-based support, rather than merely waiting for some sort of
opposition constituency to assert its ugly head?

2. Hopefully you are not suggesting that Leslie's document was a
specification. For that matter, at the plenary there were basic problems
raised with it and there has been no follow-up to those concerns.

JCK> We approve standards on far less
JCK> demonstration of consensus than that.

We do?

We approve actions where there is no history of developing a spec and,
for that matter, no public spec?

And when there has been effort to develop direct support?

Where do we do that, John?

CK>  We have  some, I think
JCK> considerable, evidence that a large fraction of the participants
JCK> in the IETF have concluded that, while they want these external
JCK> administrative processes to run smoothly, efficiently, and well,
JCK> they lack the interest and/or expertise to want to be deeply
JCK> involved in them.

So the choice is between being "deeply involved" or being entirely
excluded from any meaningful review of the details?

That is the pragmatic distinction you are suggesting.

For that matter, those who _are_ willing to be deeply involved do not
have access to the details. In fact during Leslie's plenary presentation
it appeared that the details did not exist. By contrast, Harald's
posting implies that they do exist now, yet have not been subject to any
public specification, review and approval.

JCK> Given that, what sort of public cheer do
JCK> think you is needed?

One that involves honest and open review and comment, of a detailed
specification, John. The same as is considered required for all other
IETF work.

JCK> Whether or not it is critical path is, IMO, a separate question.

That's why I asked it separately.

JCK> Even if one ignores the more general issues raised in RFC 3716
JCK> and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt (and without discussing their
JCK> relevancy or importance), we are in a situation in which we have
JCK> a shrinking resource base relative to costs.

There are a number of very different ways of dealing with our current
financial problems.

1. Holding 2 meetings outside the US in one year, with the serious
reduction in participation that comes with it, is NOT helpful towards
reducing the financial problems, nevermind that it serves to exclude
participation.

2. Constantly going to different cities is not a way to reduce costs,
since there is no learning curve and no ability to re-use any special
resources.

3. Signing venue contracts less than 6 months before the event is also
NOT a way to get expenses under control. It is typically better to sign 2
years in advance or thereabouts.

4. Going to expensive hotels that are isolated from less expensive ones
is also not a good way to ensure broad-based (and larger) participation.
Note the venue for the up-coming meeting.

5. I'll just bet there are other actions that can reduce costs, no
matter how resistant folks might be to them...

       Bottom line:

       We have not been managing our meetings in a way designed to
       reduce costs and encourage attendance.

JCK>   While a number of improvements
JCK> have been made, most of the costs arise from a fixed base, e.g.,
JCK> fewer meeting attendees may mean lowered cookie costs, but
JCK> doesn't lower the significant meeting costs, much less all of
JCK> the other secretariat costs.

We could, perhaps, also benefit from a more serious review of current
expenses, especially as soon as we start hearing the mantra of fixed
secretariat costs.

       Reality check:

       Are you suggesting that secretariat costs are going to go down?

       I do not recall seeing any serious suggestion of this in the
       entire array of public presentations and discussion, and I am
       quite sure there is no serious analysis that proves it, unless it
       has been developed privately in the last few months.

So, even if we ignore the minor fact that our administrative problems
are not what is threatening the existence of the IETF -- whereas our
inability to show timely, useful productivity is.

Even if we ignore that, we have moved from "we have an administrative
problem" to "we are implementing changes" with no explicit rationale, no
detailed description of those changes and no evaluation of their likely
efficacy.

JCK> In that environment, having
JCK> separate pools of funds, with no ability for the folks who the
JCK> IETF community holds responsible for keeping things going to
JCK> make priority decisions and move things around is, well, nuts.

Indeed, the current situation is nuts. It is nuts to focus problems that
are not threatening the relevance of the IETF rather than ones that are.
And it is nuts to proceed to implementation with no clear assessment of
the benefits to accrue.

The funding and administrative mixture of the IETF is indeed bizarre but
that does not automatically mean it is the thing to treat as an
emergency, especially since we are approaching 3 years of not treating
the real emergency as an emergency.

JCK> And those financial structure issues could bring us grinding to
JCK> a halt -- or increase meeting fees to the point that they would
JCK> become a significant barrier to participation for some people.

And I'll just bet you didn't intend that line to be humorous...

The various financial and procedural ways the IETF has been raising real
participation barriers are substantial. Nevermind that there is nothing
that has yet been presented to demonstrate that the actions to be taken
will reduce IETF attendance fees.

JCK> Of course, most of that is discussed in RFC 3716.

Actually, all that document does is to describe the existing, strange
set of administrative and financial structures. It does not propose
detaild solutions -- Section 4 is very broad strokes and tentative. It
does not evaluate choices. It does not evaluate existing operational
practises that could be improved. It does not evaluate this set of
issues in relation to decreasing IETF relevance.

It does not, in other words, do more than evaluate the current funding
and accountability relationships.  So, 3716 is an entirely fine
document.

But let's not claim that it does more than it does.

JJCK> Last Called.  Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen an
JCK> outpouring of comments and complaints about its content.

Given the failure to address the concerns that _were_ raised at the
Plenary, John, there are multiple, possible explanations for the lack of
public comment.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:31:59 -0400

--On Sunday, 06 June, 2004 16:43 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> JCK> presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus
> was that JCK> people should move ahead with this process,
> 
> 1. Attendance by the on-going IETF pool of participants was
> _very_ poor. Any attempt to claim that positive feedback at
> that event is somehow representative of the larger community
> should raise some deeper questions about IETF process. (And by
> the way, claiming that that room showed strong support does
> not match my own perception or the perception of quite a few
> other attendees.)

I was there the first part of the week.  I pretty much know who
was there and who wasn't.  Oddly, I've expressed the concern
that a particular plenary, or process WG session, was not
reflective of community consensus before (and that was why I
tried to choose my language carefully).  But my recollection is
that on the previous occasions, you've taken the other position,
i.e., that the plenary is our best single location mechanism.
On that, and on the classic problem of people having mixed
perceptions based possibly on their biases coming in, see below
(and the latter are really old problems, in the IETF and
elsewhere, but clearly one should be careful about drawing
conclusions).

> 2. An "outline" is very different from a detailed
> specification and I carefully stated that Harald's note
> appears to indicate that things have moved beyond
> consideration and into actual implementations. If that is not
> what is happening, then Harald should explain what actual is
> happening.

I didn't hear what was actually presented there, since I didn't
hear it, and selected the word "outline" to be conservative.
But the I-D strikes me as reasonably specific and it was posted
before the meeting and, I assume, pointed out there.  People in
the IETF are, if I recall, expected to read documents on
subjects they find relevant.  And even to comment on them if
they don't like them.

> 3. Presentation and discussion at a face-to-face IETF meeting
> is never an IETF decision, remember? What happened to the
> explicit confirmation with the _real_ IETF plenary, namely the
> online community?

Oh, I remember.  See above and below.

> JCK> the IETF list, or in any other place that I'm following,
> that JCK> would convince me that there is community consensus
> against JCK> their proceeding, and
> draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt has been JCK> posted since
> February and hasn't seemed to draw much negative JCK>
> attention either.
> 
> 1. So this is one of those "proceed if there is no massive
> objection" kinds of decisions? Shouldn't a fundamental change
> in IETF administrative structure carry an expectation of
> rather more proactive, broad-based support, rather than merely
> waiting for some sort of opposition constituency to assert its
> ugly head?

Well, maybe.  Or, more specifically, "absolutely yes, that is
how it should be... only the IETF pet pig hasn't been getting up
to takeoff speed lately".  I think it is a frightening
situation, but we are approving _standards_ which only a handful
of people in the relevant WG have read and understood, and the
modal number of comments on IETF Last Call about such documents
is zero.

The two documents I cited make a rather strong case that sitting
around and doing nothing in the hope that things will get
spontaneously better is a seriously bad strategy.  That case
(or, if you prefer, problem statement) is independent of any of
the options about what one might do instead.  So, yes, I'd much
prefer to see broad-based support for a particular option.  And
I'd prefer to see other options placed on the table in the usual
form of I-Ds that make alternate suggestions.  But no such
alternatives have emerged, nor has there been any sign of a
counterargument to the "sitting around waiting for things to get
spontaneously better almost certainly won't work" hypothesis.
And that makes this a lot, IMO, like our standards situation:
some people have put a lot of effort into studying the situation
and the options and have put forward a proposal.  They have
asked for comments on the proposal and have gotten few if any of
them and there have been neither counterproposals nor coherent
arguments that they are trying to solve a problem that is best
left unsolved.  In those situations with the standards process,
we move forward, rather than sitting around waiting until
massive support emerges.  That low level of community review and
comment makes me pretty uncomfortable --I think it should make
all of us pretty uncomfortable-- but the alternatives are worse.

Whether the level of specification is adequate or not depends, I
think, on how far into detailed management (I'm tempted to say
"micromanagement" but it is too pejorative) the community wants
to go.  I think the evidence is "not very far", a few of us who
get anxious about anything we haven't personally poked into
notwithstanding.  In particular, this is not, IMO, a
"fundamental change in IETF administrative structure" (your
opinion may differ, of course).  While it creates a platform
from which other, more fundamental, changes could be launched
were the community to decide to do so, all this one really does
is to move us into a situation in which all of the incoming
funds go into one pool so that the IETF leadership (I hope and
trust with adequate consultation with the community) can
allocate that pool accordingly, made sensible decisions about
meeting fees, etc.  To facilitate that, it creates a one-person
staff who is really responsible to them.  

That contrasts with the present situation in which one
organization is able to make its own decisions about what is and
is not important and in the best interests of the IETF and the
Internet, appoints its own staff, sets its own budget, and
adjusts the meeting fees to match.  They do that in consultation
with the IETF leadership, but have no obligation to follow any
recommendations or conclusions from the consultative process (or
even to provide full details about cost and expenditure flows).
And there is also another organization that collects funds and
disburse them to yet other organizations, with more oversight
from the IETF but no mechanism for either drawing on the meeting
fees or underwriting IETF costs to keep those fees lower.   Now,
that situation, or at least significant parts of it, actually
have some advantages that have served the IETF well over the
years (especially when there was more total money floating
around).  But one thing I don't think any of us can do with a
straight face is to say that the proposed new system gives IETF
participants less insight into, or ability to control, things
than the status quo.

And my evidence that the typical IETF participant doesn't give
the proverbial back end of rat about this as long as things work
--and is willing to trust the leadership to sort things out so
they keep working-- is not the attendance at a plenary or two,
or the general silence on the mailing list, although both
reinforce the conclusion.  Instead, it is the observation that
almost no one has taken the time, especially before RFC 3716 and
the I-Ds that led up to it were published, to actually find out
about and understand even the above minimal summary about how
things work today and have been working for the last decade or
more.

Do I wish we had more participation and involvement?  Yes.  Do I
wish we had better and more participant review of both standards
and these sorts of administrative procedure changes?  Yes.  Do I
want to see micromanagement, or management by mob, of the
external administrative model?  Nope, but largely because I
don't think it would work well and, in particular, because that
I think that such a process would mostly turn IETF over to those
who could (and would be inclined to) spend a lot of time yelling
about things they didn't like, rather than to people selected
through the Nomcom process.

Do I think we can afford to do nothing --either about the
external administrative and budgeting model or about issuing
standards-- until all of those problems (and I do think they are
problems) solve themselves?  Not unless we just want to fold our
tents and stop this IETF thing now.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your note at another time,
but I think most of it just misses the point.

FWIW, I would be a lot more nervous about the present situation
if the proposal were "hire a General Manager on a long term
contract with a specific mandate that was unknown to the
community".  But that isn't the proposal.  The proposal is, as
Harald has described (or, if you prefer, "outlined") it, to get
a consultant on board to take the next steps in putting the
framework together.  I assume that will produce another report
and another opportunity for review.

Two more, nearly-out-of-context, comments...

* Yes, we could cut meeting costs considerably by holding all
meetings in the US and preferably, from a cost standpoint, in
the off-seasons of places that no one wants to go to then.
Minneapolis in the winter often comes up as an example in this
regard, but I can easily think of cheaper options, like Phoenix
in July.  But we are supposed to be an international body and,
while people can participate more or less fully in our technical
work without setting foot in meetings, we have made rules for
ourselves that require meeting attendance as a condition for
taking on any sort of leadership or steering role.  Independent
of the costs of US meetings for non-US participants (when that
was a key issue, we certainly could have debated different types
of weighting functions), the US has now created an entry visa
situation that makes it essentially impossible for network
engineers from a number of countries to attend.  I didn't cause
that problem, nor did you or the IESG, but we need to deal with
it or give up almost any pretense of full participation of
people from many parts of the world.  I think that is too high a
price.

* Like you, I think there are a lot of other ways to cut costs.
But, in the present environment, it is impossible to get
sufficiently precise budget figures to be able to make that
determination, so both of us are shooting in the dark.  For the
record, when I was IAB Chair and a part of the formal budget
review process, I couldn't get those figures either.   The
reforms suggested in these various documents appear to be
prerequisite to either getting those figures (nothing else has
worked and many things have been tried) or to putting at least
some of the cost centers out for competitive bid.  Either one
would enable the type of transparency needed to make real
decisions about costs and cost control tradeoffs.  So it seems
to me that you ought to be supportive, or at least tolerant, of
this effort if only on that basis alone.

    john

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:36:09 -0400

Dave,

No, you haven't missed it -- first step in setting up anything is making
a (detailed) plan.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:40:56 -0400

John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> An "outline" is very different from a detailed specification...

   Up to this point, I've only seen vague "outlines". I could, I suppose,
criticize these for what's _not_ in them, but I'd feel silly...

>...
> The two documents I cited make a rather strong case that sitting around
> and doing nothing in the hope that things will get spontaneously better
> is a seriously bad strategy. 

   I don't dispute that. But we have a medium-long list of former
IAB/IESG chairs (including you, John!) who could be writing up actual
specifications and posting them for comments.

   Going from vague "outlines" to "implementation" with no visible steps
in between, violates the Principle of Least Astonishment. (IMHO.)

>...
> Whether the level of specification is adequate or not depends, I think,
> on how far into detailed management (I'm tempted to say "micromanagement"
> but it is too pejorative) the community wants to go. 

   Straw-man. "Micro-management" is something done by people with
authority. And the level of specification is far from adequate, even for
those who run screaming whenever the "management" word is mentioned.

> In particular, this is not, IMO, a "fundamental change in IETF
> administrative structure" (your opinion may differ, of course). 

   Though it's hard to say in the absence of details, it looks kind of
fundamental to me.

>...
> That contrasts with the present situation in which one organization

   You mean the Secretariat, right?

> is able to make its own decisions about what is and is not important
> and in the best interests of the IETF and the Internet, appoints its
> own staff, sets its own budget, and adjusts the meeting fees to match. 

   I'm very ready to admit that not all tasks currently done by the
Secretariat deserve to be there, but running the large meetings, IMHO,
strongly deserves to be done by an organization experienced at running
large meetings. I've seen too many cases of volunteer Boards screwing
up an entire organization while trying to run large meetings.

   I don't know what changes in this area are being considered, and that
makes me nervous.

> They do that in consultation with the IETF leadership, but have no
> obligation to follow any recommendations or conclusions from the
> consultative process (or even to provide full details about cost and
> expenditure flows).

   Which, for the large meetings, is the way it ought to be. (IMHO.)

   There are, of course, other functions currently done by the Secretariat
which very likely would be improved by more formal consultation. Indeed,
these might very well work better contracted to some other organization.
I, again, don't know what changes are being considered. :^(

> And there is also another organization that collects funds and disburse
> them to yet other organizations, with more oversight from the IETF but
> no mechanism for either drawing on the meeting fees or underwriting
> IETF costs to keep those fees lower.  

   You mean ISOC, right?

> Now, that situation, or at least significant parts of it, actually have
> some advantages that have served the IETF well over the years (especially
> when there was more total money floating around). 

   I quite agree it has served us well. I'd be giving them money if I
could just find that Round Tuit...

> But one thing I don't think any of us can do with a straight face is to
> say that the proposed new system gives IETF participants less insight
> into, or ability to control, things than the status quo.

   Again, I don't know enough details of what is being considered to say
one way or the other.

> And my evidence that the typical IETF participant doesn't give the
> proverbial back end of rat about this as long as things work --and is
> willing to trust the leadership to sort things out so they keep
> working-- is not the attendance at a plenary or two, or the general
> silence on the mailing list, although both reinforce the conclusion. 

   Yes -- the evidence is strong that _many_ of us run screaming when
the "management" word is mentioned.

> Instead, it is the observation that almost no one has taken the time,
> especially before RFC 3716 and the I-Ds that led up to it were
> published, to actually find out about and understand even the above
> minimal summary about how things work today and have been working for
> the last decade or more.

   Evidence, please?

> Do I wish we had more participation and involvement?  Yes.  Do I wish
> we had better and more participant review of both standards and these
> sorts of administrative procedure changes?  Yes. 

   There are ways to accomplish that. Personally, I believe we're making
progress -- however glacial.

> Do I want to see micromanagement, or management by mob, of the external
> administrative model?  Nope, but largely because I don't think it would
> work well and, in particular, because that I think that such a process
> would mostly turn IETF over to those who could (and would be inclined
> to) spend a lot of time yelling about things they didn't like, rather
> than to people selected through the Nomcom process.

   I'm trying -- really I am -- to avoid calling that another strawman.

   But for the life of me, I don't see how the alternative to "A Miracle
Occurs" getting us from vague outline to implementation _could_ equal
"micromanagement" or "management by mob". Nor do I see how giving
interested parties their own mailing-list to discuss this would hurt
the process.

>...
> FWIW, I would be a lot more nervous about the present situation if
> the proposal were "hire a General Manager on a long term contract
> with a specific mandate that was unknown to the community".  But that
> isn't the proposal.  The proposal is, as Harald has described (or, if
> you prefer, "outlined") it, to get a consultant on board to take the
> next steps in putting the framework together.  I assume that will
> produce another report and another opportunity for review.

   Indeed, that is what I expect, also. Unfortunately, I've come to
expect we won't learn the contents of that report until a few hours
before the Plenary Session in August. I don't mean that anyone intends
to keep us in the dark -- it just seems to happen that way. I'm not
sure it's even _possible_ to do otherwise.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:36:03 -0400

John C Klensin wrote:

>meetings in the US
[...]

>the US has now created an entry visa
>engineers from a number of countries to attend.
>  
>
How about holding meetings in Canada? It'd be almost as cheap for the US 
people to attend, and (last I heard) Canada didn't have visa 
requirements derived from the War On Alleged Terrorists Who Have Major 
Oil Reserves.

-- 
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                          |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                        |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                       |
|=================================================================|
|"If nobody believes what I say, I feel ineffective." "Oh, I don't|
|believe that."                                                   |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:35:38 -0700

> This means that you are proceeding with the changes.

No. It means that we need to make a plan for those changes.
You can't review what isn't there. My bad wording.

> when did the IETF approve it?

Leslie's message of May 26 was more accurate than mine.
Was there any piece of information you felt was missing in that message?

> better material in a more timely fashion?

NEWTRK, ICAR, EDU and the PROTO efforts all have capable leaders who are 
not critical-path resources for the AdminRest effort.

I believe that the AdminRest activities are, in the long run, critical for 
making it possible for the IETF to produce better material in a timely 
fashion. So I'm devoting considerable time to it, as is Leslie.

I believe we are making the best use of resources that we can make based on 
our judgment. If you have a specific suggestion to make, make it.

                             Harald