Subject: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111

From: IETF Administrative Director <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:06:03 -0800

The IAOC is pleased to announce the selection of venues for the
following IEF meetings:

IETF 98:  Chicago  March 26 - 31 2017

	This meeting was originally scheduled for Montreal, but the hotel
	will be under renovation over our dates.

IETF 99:  Prague  July 16 - 21 2017

IETF 102:  San Francisco   July 22 - 27 2018

IETF 111:  San Francisco  July 25 - 30 2021

Ray

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:32:00 -0500

--On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 13:06 -0800 IETF Administrative
Director <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...

Ray,

Reflecting on the current discussion of hotels and observing
that several people have expressed concern about statements like
"can't do anything to change the policies or affect that date or
location because we are working three years out", does this
imply that you and the IAOC are making commitments we could not
change if we wanted to (even if circumstances changed) 5 1/2
years out.   I'm all in favor of pinning down dates well in
advance but, when we start talking about commitments to
"venues", it is a source of some small anxiety.

    john

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:03:27 -0500

John,

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 6:32 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

Thanks for raising the issue.  We always evaluate the risks when
entering into contracts, especially hotel contracts into the future.

We feel very comfortable with the risk for the meeting in San
Francisco in 2021 at the Hilton with the combination of attrition,
block reduction, and cancellation provisions that are in the contract
and the multi-event agreement we have with the Hilton.

In my 10 years the Internet Society has never paid for a shortfall
in filling IETF meeting guest rooms to which we have committed.

My best for a happy and healthy new year.

Ray

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:34:14 -0600

Hi Ray,

> in filling IETF meeting guest rooms to which we have committed.

The issue is not filling IETF meeting guest rooms to which we have committed.
The issue is those rooms go away in one day. While with IEEE, even
after one month, you can still get a room at the venue.

Wishing you a very happy new year.

Behcet

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:08:17 -0500

Ray,

I think you missed the main point of my concern/question (in
addition to the issue Behcet commented on).  Apologies if I was
not clear.  I am completely confident about the ability of the
IAOC and the Meetings Committee to evaluate financial risks and
get things right on those issues.

However, with regard to setting the policies and priorities
(other than at least breaking even) that determine meeting
locations, my understanding of how the IETF works is that the
IAOC is supposed to be interpreting community views (or
proposing policies to the community and getting approval) and
instructing the Meetings Committee accordingly.  

Independent of the specific concerns, complaints, and general
whining about particular venues or choices, the thing I, and
apparently others, have heard most consistently in recent years
involves people in the community saying "we should reprioritize
so-and-so" and the IAOC or meetings committee responding "can't
do that because we are working three years out".   Some people
have expressed the suspicion that a response of that type is
equivalent to "the tradeoffs are complicated, the community
can't possibly understand them, we understand these things
better than the community does anyway, so we aren't really
interested in input or community oversight".  Even without
believing that, if working three years ahead effectively
suppresses priority determination by the community by making any
such efforts ineffective within any reasonable time, then 5 1/2
is much worse.

Put differently, I think the community gives some things up with
the "3 year" plan, including a lot of potential for close
oversight.  Personally, I think that tradeoff is reasonable (and
two years certainly would be).  But, as we push past three years
and toward 5 1/2 or Fred's nine, the community gives up far more
oversight capability and I think that is unwise.... at least
unless the IAOC and/or meetings committee are willing to provide
a model for preserving that policy and priority oversight while
committing venues far in advance.    Your "these are the issues
we consider, but priorities among them may vary" notes and
information are, IMO, _very_ helpful, but don't address the
issues because the community really should be able to understand
the priorities or at least evaluate the consequences of how they
are applied and then make changes as the community deems
appropriate.

best,
     john

>> that several people have expressed concern about statements
>> like "can't do anything to change the policies or affect that
>> date or location because we are working three years out",
>> does this imply that you and the IAOC are making commitments
>> we could not change if we wanted to (even if circumstances
>> changed) 5 1/2 years out.   I'm all in favor of pinning down
>> dates well in advance but, when we start talking about
>> commitments to "venues", it is a source of some small anxiety.
> 
> Thanks for raising the issue.  We always evaluate the risks
> when entering into contracts, especially hotel contracts into
> the future.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:41:07 -0800 (PST)

> instructing the Meetings Committee accordingly.  

Yes.

> do that because we are working three years out".

No, I hope not. What you have heard (or should have heard) is that 
there are incompatible requirements, kind of like the "cheap, fast, 
reliable, pick two!" joke. So every choice has a set of consequences 
and there is no such thing as a perfect choice.

> Some people have expressed the suspicion that a response of that 
> type is equivalent to "the tradeoffs are complicated, the community 
> can't possibly understand them, we understand these things better 
> than the community does anyway, so we aren't really interested in 
> input or community oversight".

I hope that isn't the case. I have certainly seen the venue selection 
priorities evolve to become much broader and the IAOC reacting to 
them, whereby "meeting facility works" is no longer the dominant 
factor and "alternative accomodation, travel, shops, etc" is taken 
more into account than, oh, say for Maastricht and Dublin, to name a 
couple of less than stellar choices.

> Even without believing that, if working three years ahead 
> effectively suppresses priority determination by the community by 
> making any such efforts ineffective within any reasonable time, then 
> 5 1/2 is much worse.

What specific priority, related to this announcement, is it that you 
think could, should or would change? That we start meeting at 
university campuses again, radically reduce the number of paralell 
sessions, have more or fewer meetings per year, radically change 
remote participation options? Those are all things that COULD happen 
and SHOULD happen if the community agrees, but given how slow anything 
moves in the IETF, would it not make sense to at least assume things 
will continue more or less as currently when making deals for 
resources that are decidedly limited and time sensitive?

I do agree that a deeper analysis of the priorities should be 
undertaken and discussed with the community of course.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:26:17 -0500

--On Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:41 -0800 Ole Jacobsen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> apparently others, have heard most consistently in recent
>> years involves people in the community saying "we should
>> reprioritize so-and-so" and the IAOC or meetings committee
>> responding "can't do that because we are working three years
>> out".
> 
> No, I hope not. What you have heard (or should have heard) is
> that  there are incompatible requirements, kind of like the
> "cheap, fast,  reliable, pick two!" joke. So every choice has
> a set of consequences  and there is no such thing as a perfect
> choice.

Speaking personally, I'm less upset about the particular choices
than many others seem to be.  That is in part because, as you
have perhaps noticed, I am increasingly weighing how much I
really need to go to a particular meeting and deciding against
it.  As an example, an implication of that is that I can look at
the specifics of the BA hotel debate and handling from the safe
distance of knowing that the odds of my making that trip were
very low before that situation made the aggravation and/or costs
higher.  Maybe that is good for the IETF on balance, even (or
especially) if it makes me less likely to volunteer for roles
that would require me to show up f2f.

I also understand the special circumstances, but, while 1-1-1
has been repeated several times lately, Honolulu is not "North
America" (especially in an environment in which Vancouver has
been presented as "Asia-Pacific") and Honolulu, Dallas, Prague,
Yokohama, Buenos Aires, Berlin, Seoul doesn't look a lot like
1-1-1.   So maybe 1-1-1 is now interpreted as "Western
Hemisphere, Europe, East Asia" but, when I compare the airfares
I can use (remember I've got some special requirements in that
area) to BA to those to Tokyo, there is a less than 10%
difference so one of the goals of 1-1-1, to balance the costs
becomes meaningless, at least over that 2+ year period.

What I am concerned about is accountability and responsiveness
to the community.  I've seen Fred's note that says the IAOC
really is in charge and making the decisions.  You have said
similar things and I believe both of you.  At the same time,
I've heard recent IAOC members respond to questions by
attributing decisions to the meetings committee and being really
out of the IAOC's control.  I've also heard the "three years as
an excuse" claim made, not just by us whiners in the community
but by recent IESG members.   I presume all of you are being
truthful but that leads to a conclusion that things are a little
out of the control of the community somewhere... and it is
_that_ which concerns me.

One of those accountability issues is that I think the community
has made it extremely clear that alternate hotel arrangements
should be in place and announced concurrent with the
announcement of the primary hotel and opening of registrations.
We used to be able to do that, even with less than three years
lead time.  Of late, we haven't been, in spite of, presumably,
nearly three years to prepare.  I think the community is
entitled to understand why (or what is wrong with my logic) and
who is responsible and/or what is being done to fix it... in
less than three years.

Coming back to the "cheap, fast, reliable, pick two!" joke, to
which I'm very sensitive, that joke has another side, which it
that it ought to be possible, at least after the fact, to ask
"ok, which two did you pick?" and get a straight answer.  That
is what accountability is all about because the community needs
that information to provide informed advice on the choices.  It
also needs that advice to be effective it is is provided.  If
what it hears in response to advice is that there is no point
giving it because circumstances and priorities will change
enough by the time (in, e.g., three or 5 1/2 or 12 years), there
is a different, but closely related, problem (bringing me back
to the specific cause of my note and question to Ray).    But,
instead, what we get is a longer list of criteria than three, an
indication that different priorities are used under different
circumstances and perhaps from meeting to meeting, and that is
all -- a situation that is indistinguishable from the
information available to the community from "we are going to
make those decisions in secret and feel no obligation to tell
you".

That problem is somewhat exacerbated by the observation that the
IAOC has chosen to not post hotel contracts, even redacted
versions, for many years (if ever, and despite promises at
various times) in what seems to me to be aclear violation of the
transparency requirement of Section 7 of RFC 4071.  The
community almost certainly does not need to know dollar amounts
and other arrangements that would fall under "reasonable
confidentiality obligations", but, precisely in line with the
above comments about choices of priorities, the community should
be able to understand specific guarantees and tradeoffs.    

In particular, almost everyone who has ever negotiated a hotel
contract for a moderately large (or larger) meeting knows that
relationships among meeting room costs (including the
differences between meeting room charges to someone with a block
of rooms in the hotel and someone coming in "off the street" and
wanting to rent/use the meeting rooms alone), guarantees about
guest room revenue (or equivalent), guest room discounts from
"rack rate", guarantees about use of hotel catering services and
other add-on costs/ profit items, and arrangements about
"complementary" rooms or upgrades are all part of the
negotiation.  Such things as the ratio between the number of
rooms the hotel guarantees to have available for the group
(i.e., the "room block size") and the number of rooms (or room
revenue) the group guarantees to fill also often go into the
mix.  That is all complicated and most of us know it is
complicated, but that doesn't seem to me to be an excuse for
systematically leaving the community in the dark about what is
going on and what priorities are being used.

I can remember times and places when the IETF got meeting rooms
(sometimes all but the plenary ballrooms, sometimes those but
not the smaller spaces) for nearly free in return for other
commitments, commitments that sometimes increased costs
(relative to what might otherwise have been possible) to
individual participants.  Maybe a good tradeoff, maybe not, but,
in the IASA model, a subject on which the IAOC (or the meetings
committee, or the IAD specifically) ought to be able to be open
and candid with the community.  Again, I'm not asking for
violations of reasonable confidentiality, only that the
community be told what the powers-that-be are trying to optimize
and that we have reasonable input into those choices.

We are not getting it now.

>> effectively suppresses priority determination by the
>> community by  making any such efforts ineffective within any
>> reasonable time, then  5 1/2 is much worse.
> 
> What specific priority, related to this announcement, is it
> that you  think could, should or would change? That we start
> meeting at  university campuses again, radically reduce the
> number of paralell  sessions, have more or fewer meetings per
> year, radically change  remote participation options? Those
> are all things that COULD happen  and SHOULD happen if the
> community agrees, but given how slow anything  moves in the
> IETF, would it not make sense to at least assume things  will
> continue more or less as currently when making deals for 

First, I hope we can keep this discussion as positive and
focused as possible, specifically without introducing strawman
options like university campuses.  We seem to be working on
"radically changing remote participation options" and making
some progress -- not as much or as rapidly as I would like --
but progress nonetheless.  If some comments in these threads are
indicative, BA may strain those arrangements more than some
prior meetings and, as a likely remote participant (see above),
I'm personally significantly more concerned about them working
at least as well as they have in the last few meetings than I am
about how close together hotels are in that city.  In any event,
it would be very disappointing if those efforts did not bring
about some measurable changes within the three year window.

More broadly and just as an example, the number of meeting rooms
we need has been cited repeatedly as a constraint on meeting
hotels and facilities.   A sampling of agendas from Yokohama and
a few meetings circa 5 and 10 years earlier indicates that the
number of parallel WG sessions is holding constant at about
eight.  That is up from six around IETF 56, but March 2003 was a
long time ago, pre-IASA but still after the expansion to include
Friday morning sessions.  So, if that is the constraint, it
isn't changing much.   

What appears to have changed in the meeting room requirements is
that number of smaller rooms needed to accommodate
organizational requirements of the IETF and related bodies.
That is anecdotal, derived from walking down the halls of small
meeting/ conference room areas of the last few meetings I'm been
too, because I haven't been able to get any data.    I (and
others) have asked for those numbers, who is using those spaces,
and what the trends look like several times and haven't gotten
them.  The utilization ratios -- the amount of time those rooms
are actually used for IETF-critical meetings versus as private
work or conversation areas -- would also be good to know if the
community is to make informed decisions.  Certainly the number
of "small" meeting (and similar) rooms we require to qualify a
venue is not confidential commercial information.  It is
relevant to your questions above because I believe that, if the
community were asked whether we required all of those rooms if
the cost was venues that are less attractive along some of the
other selection dimensions, the answer might well be some
differences in priorities from what they are if demands or
requests for all-day availability of conference room-sized
spaces are taken as hard constraints.

Again, more information would help a lot.

> undertaken and discussed with the community of course. 

And that is the core of my disquiet and request.  It isn't as if
no one had asked before.

best,
     john

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:25:15 +0100

> And that is the core of my disquiet and request.  It isn't as if

Nevertheless, can we at least acknowledge the fact that this
announcement has us coming back to SFO /twice/ - after the choir
has been busy complaining about not spending time in the US.

	Leif (who generally just go where I'm invited)

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:13:39 -0500

jck observed

> individual participants.  

the IETF always gets “free” meeting (including plenary) rooms in north america and
never anywhere else - that is just the way that the hotel business works

Scott

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:39:11 -0500

The other question that has been on my mind is whether or how we 
continue to meet as a community.  In my personal opinion, one of the 
most important things about the IETF *is* the community and having the 
opportunity to engage one on one.    I go to IETF meetings for hallway 
conversations as much as anything else.  But — in the span of the next 
10 years, it’s not clear to me if we can or should find non-meeting 
ways to achieve those effects, and get our work done.

Absent discussion within and direction from the community on where it 
thinks we’re headed on that front, I (as an IAOC member) was not 
comfortable with agreeing to hotel commitments 8+ years out.  It is my 
understanding that we, in fact, have the ability to cancel the contract 
for IETF 111 with a survivable penalty a few years out.  I.e., it’s a 
good deal for current course and speed, and if that changes 
significantly before we get to the 3 year window, we have the ability to 
reorganize.

I realize that doesn’t address all of the issues you raised, but 
hopefully it helps at the broad-brushstroke level.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:50:56 -0500

> On Jan 8, 2016:10:39 AM, at 10:39 AM, Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> The other question that has been on my mind is whether or how we continue to meet as a community.  In my personal opinion, one of the most important things about the IETF *is* the community and having the opportunity to engage one on one.    I go to IETF meetings for hallway conversations as much as anything else.  But — in the span of the next 10 years, it’s not clear to me if we can or should find non-meeting ways to achieve those effects, and get our work done.

	While useful, many other very successful organizations meet only remotely and have periodic “summits” where people might or might not show up.  All actual work happens using remote tools and meeting venues.  I am not saying one is better than the other, but just that there are existence proofs of organizations working without requiring physical meetings.  I’ve tried to advocate strongly that this organization consider that, at least partially due to all the logistical reasons discussed not to mention the costs associated with physical meetings.

	—Tom

> Absent discussion within and direction from the community on where it thinks we’re headed on that front, I (as an IAOC member) was not comfortable with agreeing to hotel commitments 8+ years out.  It is my understanding that we, in fact, have the ability to cancel the contract for IETF 111 with a survivable penalty a few years out.  I.e., it’s a good deal for current course and speed, and if that changes significantly before we get to the 3 year window, we have the ability to reorganize.
> 
> I realize that doesn’t address all of the issues you raised, but hopefully it helps at the broad-brushstroke level.
> 
> Leslie.
> 
> 
> -- 
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:08:33 -0500

> 	Leif (who generally just go where I'm invited)

You might have a point if the two dates were more closely linked or 
there were a lot more proportionally (to the entire set) than there 
are... in the current instance, not so much.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the general scheme is 1-1-1.  SF in 
2018 and SF in 2021 appear to be 2 of the 4 US meetings that would 
normally be scheduled in North America in that period.   And as noted 
elsewhere, contracting the US hotels has tended (not always but more 
often than not) to be less .. time consuming? ... fraught with location 
issues? ... than other locations, especially with hotels to which we've 
already been.

Later, Mike

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:13:52 -0500

I'd like to add one additional comment as an IAOC member (but not
speaking for the IAOC).  I think we, the IAOC and meetings committee,
can and should do better on transparency of meeting requirements,
selection process, and contracts.  I'm hoping to see some progress on
this before/by BA.

Lou

On 01/08/2016 10:39 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> 10 years, it’s not clear to me if we can or should find non-meeting ways
> to achieve those effects, and get our work done.
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:27:18 -0600

And, I'd like to suggest that my document with regards to food requirements
be considered in your process of articulating meeting requirements,
arranging contracts, etc.:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-healthy-food-07
I do plan on another revision and requesting publication.  While most folks
loved Berlin, the hotel was a nightmare when it came to eating - I was sick
several times during the week and there was not a satisfactory *real* food
market nearby that I found.  And, in general even at recent meetings, even
though there are what might be considered safe food options during breaks,
 the way they are served generally makes it impossible for me (and others)
to safely partake (e.g., having cheese *and* crackers co-located, etc.).
And, my efforts in working with the staff directly have failed totally - in
London, I had suggested directly to the staff that they put cookies on one
end of the table and veggies on the other to avoid the cross contamination
and was told they would do that once the chef went back to the kitchen as
it would "upset" him for them to do so.  All these issues can be addressed
with sufficient planning and the solutions are quite simple.

Okay - I'm done ranting for now and while many might disagree with my
concerns, I'd like to ask folks to not jump onto this thread and do so and
wait until I update the document .  We can then discuss the issues in that
context and make it easier for those that don't care to ignore.  However, I
do welcome offline comments.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:23:35 -0500

> never anywhere else - that is just the way that the hotel business works

My observation is that primary hotel prices in North America are generally
lower than in other continents (with the exception of Quebec).
Official overflow hotels in NA are generally priced similarly, while in other
places, they price difference can be significant.  I think I've never stayed
in the official overflow hotel, as I've always found something closer at a
much better value. [And in Vancouver, hotwire found me a room in the overflow
hotel at a lower rate than the IETF rate. Hotwire doesn't tell you what you
booked until after you pay]

Like JK, I am attend remotely regularly, and I'm unclear if I'll go to BA.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:21:10 +0200

First, I wanted to agree with what Lou said - we could do much better
documenting and being transparent about meeting location choices.
Lou is working hard on that in the IAOC, by the way.

> While useful, many other very successful organizations meet only remotely and have periodic “summits” where people might or might not show up.  All actual work happens using remote tools and meetin…

I think this is a bit of a matter of degrees. You could argue that this is
precisely what the IETF does. Most of our work happens on list, on
writing complex documents and sharing them over the net, and
perhaps more recently also in various virtual meetings.

In most organisations people tend to value in-person
communication to some extent, at least from time to time,
including in the organisations that do summits. The
question is to what extent, and I’m reasonably happy with the
IETF tradeoffs in this. But, it is not like that couldn’t be improved
either.

Here’s a question that I think would be worthwhile to consider.
We do create working groups in some cases even without running
a physical BOF meeting, but mostly in cases where the creation of
that working group is a no brainer. What would it take to run the
next interesting/controversial BOF as a virtual meeting? It would
great if we could do this, but I’m not sure it is easy either. (I’m not
trying to eliminate the meetings as a useful venue to do BOFs,
but in many cases the ability to decide the matter when it
comes up as opposed to many months away might be useful
for other reasons.)

Jari

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:37:16 +0100

Skickat från min iPhone

> 8 jan. 2016 kl. 18:08 skrev Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>:
> 
> You might have a point if the two dates were more closely linked or there were a lot more proportionally (to the entire set) than there are... in the current instance, not so much.
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, the general scheme is 1-1-1.  SF in 2018 and SF in 2021 appear to be 2 of the 4 US meetings that would normally be scheduled in North America in that period.   And as noted elsewhere, contracting

Exactly - 50% of the norte meetings will be close to silly valley. Whats to complain about?

> the US hotels has tended (not always but more often than not) to be less .. time consuming? ... fraught with location issues? ... than other locations, especially with hotels to which we've already been.
> 
> 
> Later, Mike
>

---

From: thomas nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 08:57:09 -0500

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 4:21 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

That sounds like something positive to try. I have setup several BoFs and have found that even for "difficult" ones, this would be useful as much of the hard work for  especially some non-wg-forming ones, are largely discussions where our remote tools would probably work. This might even help where we have had limited meeting space at the venue, which I know have been challenging a few times in the past.

tom

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 09:54:52 -0500

--On Saturday, January 09, 2016 11:21 +0200 Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Here's a question that I think would be worthwhile to
> consider. We do create working groups in some cases even
> without running a physical BOF meeting, but mostly in cases
> where the creation of that working group is a no brainer. What
> would it take to run the next interesting/controversial BOF as
> a virtual meeting? It would great if we could do this, but
> I'm not sure it is easy either. (I'm not trying to
> eliminate the meetings as a useful venue to do BOFs, but in
> many cases the ability to decide the matter when it comes up
> as opposed to many months away might be useful for other
> reasons.)

Jari,

Probably an excellent idea, especially since I can only see four
possible outcomes from any given attempt:

(1) "We know enough now, form the WG".  In that case, we save
calendar and meeting time and are able to get on with the work
sooner.

(2) "This is conclusively a bad idea or not ready for IETF work"
or "it is now clear that no one other than the author cares".
As with the above, saves time and allows us to get on with our
lives.

(3) "Don't know enough, need either another virtual meeting or
an in-person BOF".   In that case, we haven't really lost
anything and probably have more information than we would have
had from mailing list discussion alone.

(4) "Couldn't make a determination, due eitherto lack of
attendance by key people or some technical issue.".   As with
(3), little has been lost and we can always hold a physical BOF
under traditional rules if needed.

Each of those seems to me to be a win, although in different
ways.  Equally useful, if we encouraged people to hold these
virtual sessions well before the request cut-off date for
in-meeting BOFs, those who requested them will be able to submit
normal request if needed, will have more information, and IETF
work will be better spread out between meetings.

best,
    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 07:40:45 +1300

On 10/01/2016 03:54, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> under traditional rules if needed.

Speaking from the time-zone-challenged corner, I see a high risk
of hitting (4) rather frequently. Of course you can argue that
there is also a high risk of hitting (4) with face2face BOFs at
unpopular destinations.

That said, it does seem worth a try.

   Brian

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:25:16 -0500

> That said, it does seem worth a try.

The objective of having a BOF should not be to decide on the
proposition, it should be to decide what the proposition should be.

Rather too often we end up with a process in which a small group of
people decide they want to handle a particular problem in a particular
way, they hold a BOF to decide on their approach which is generally
run in a way that excludes other approaches or ensures that they have
no chance of adoption and a working group is formed.

At this point the group asserts that they have exclusive ownership of
that particular problem and nobody else is to be allowed to work on it
- period.

I have a real problem with this approach. But when I complain I am
told that this is 'unhelpful' and 'disruptive'.

My problem with the situation is purely the exclusivity part. For
example, there is in my view a very obvious and simple way to approach
the problem of 'secure on first contact' TLS connections. This is to
take the current mechanisms described in  RFC 6797 and RFC 7469 and
allow the exact same header data to be published as a DNS record.

But no, this isn't allowed because the DANE group called 'dibs' on
using the DNSSEC six years ago and nobody else is to be allowed to try
a different approach. This despite the fact that none of the relevant
software providers has expressed interest in the DANE approach while
all the major browsers support HSTS and Chrome and Mozilla have
already deployed HSKP.

I did point out at the time that the group was formed that it would
conflict with the security policy work being done on HTTP Strict
Security. But I was assured that DANE would not be doing security
policy. Then as soon as they were chartered they began doing security
policy and loudly asserted nobody else could.

This particular way of carrying on does not seem to be very helpful to
me. Either we should allow a hundred flowers to bloom and for
competing approaches to be pursued side by side or we should have a
formal mechanism for resolving the conflicts that doesn't depend on
being considered a 'team player'.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 15:53:39 -0500

--On Sunday, January 10, 2016 07:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> (3), little has been lost and we can always hold a physical
>> BOF under traditional rules if needed.
> 
> Speaking from the time-zone-challenged corner, I see a high
> risk of hitting (4) rather frequently. Of course you can argue
> that there is also a high risk of hitting (4) with face2face
> BOFs at unpopular destinations.

Yes.  I could also suggest that the virtual plan gives more
flexibility of scheduling to accommodate people who are
"normally" time-zone-challenged or even of holding two sessions
at different times and collecting information from both.  (4)
may certainly happen and, again, if it does, it seems to me that
we gain some small amount of information and don't lose much.
We will clearly have to experiment and learn as we go along but
it seems to me that, if we don't need just about everyone in the
same physical room at the same time, it opens up all sorts of
possibilities.

> That said, it does seem worth a try.

thx.

   john

p.s. I read Phillip's note, but I see most of the issues he has
raised as more "bad charter", "bad WG management", "failure of
the IESG to supervise adequately", or even "not enough
mechanisms for feedback by the broader community into how a WG
is going" and not specifically BOF problems.  There is an issue,
IMO, with WGs feeling that, having been chartered, they have
"rights" to have anything they emit standardized, but it is,
again, a different issue from the BOF one, whether the BOFs are
in-person or virtual.   As to the substance of his claims, if
people in the community believe that the system is being
"worked" or otherwise used abusively, I hope they are having
detailed discussions with Nomcoms about specific behavior (or
non-performance) and their consequences and appealing when
needed.  Personally, I've found carefully-constructed appeals,
especially about matters that are within scope but have not been
adequately and/or fairly considered to be very effective and
educational for all concerned.  Sometimes I wish we had more of
them.

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 16:48:48 -0800

> selection process, and contracts.  I'm hoping to see some progress on

Perhaps if you listed the constraints which are holding you back 
currently the community could provide resources to assist you?

Doug

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:47:36 -0500

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> is going" and not specifically BOF problems.

The BOF part of the issue is what the purpose of the BOF should be.

I think we spend rather too little time discussing what the general
problem space is. There are main two ways that a WG can fail. The
first is that they pick something so big and complex that they can't
deliver. We haven't done that for a long time. The second is that they
tackle a problem so small that either nobody cares or nobody can
actually make use of it without the rest of the support required. We
do that a lot.

Having a virtual BOF and spending a day or two days brainstorming the
problem area is probably a better use of people's time than a lot of
other things we do.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:39:29 -0500

--On Saturday, January 09, 2016 23:47 -0500 Phillip Hallam-Baker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> p.s. I read Phillip's note, but I see most of the issues he
>> has raised as more "bad charter", "bad WG management",
>> "failure of the IESG to supervise adequately", or even "not
>> enough mechanisms for feedback by the broader community into
>> how a WG is going" and not specifically BOF problems.
> 
> I think we spend rather too little time discussing what the
> general problem space is. There are main two ways that a WG
> can fail. The first is that they pick something so big and
> complex that they can't deliver. We haven't done that for a
> long time. The second is that they tackle a problem so small
> that either nobody cares or nobody can actually make use of it
> without the rest of the support required. We do that a lot.

I may disagree about the frequency of  the first of those and
situations in which we still do it.   In particular, I think
some of the things that you identify as "problem so small..."
result from taking on something large, discovering that its
implications and issues are too complex for at least some of the
participants (and their personal or organizational deadlines) to
think about and respond by carving off the part of the problem
they understand and can "solve" (often by finding a handy hammer
and deciding the problem is the proverbial nail) and declaring
it is the problem.  I fear that a lot of what is being proposed
or done in the name of privacy falls into that category.   Or
perhaps that is a third important failure mode.

> Having a virtual BOF and spending a day or two days
> brainstorming the problem area is probably a better use of
> people's time than a lot of other things we do.

We agree about that, at least.  I hope it was implied in my
comments to Brian, but I think one of the main advantages of a
virtual BOF, especially one well in advance of the f2f BOF
cutoff date, is the ability to say "not ready yet" and try again
(perhaps even with another virtual BOF or two) without the cost
of losing three or four months.  I don't know how often "we've
held this BOF and now the only alternative to approving a
possibly-inadequate charter is to lose four months" has led to
some of the decisions you (and I) lament, but it can't help.

   john