Subject: [77attendees] Bar BoF: ip traceback

From: Hiroaki Hazeyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:06:43 +0900

Hi,

We will have a IP traceback bar bof

Day: Wednesday March 24
Time: 11:45,
location: TBD

Welcome to come for a discussion and suggestions and comments are highly desired.

The agenda of our Bar BOF is as follows;

- introduction of the traceback architecture of the field trial in Japan
(10 min.)

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hazeyama-traceback-field-trial-00.txt

- evaluation results of the tracback field trial in Japan (10 min.)

- DNS log-based traceback (10 min.)

Best regards,

H. Hazeyama

---

From: Hiroaki Hazeyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:23:06 +0900

the location of the ip traceback bar bof is Carmel.

thanks,
H. Hazeyama

(2010/03/23 22:06), Hiroaki Hazeyama wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> 77attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees
>

---

From: Hiroaki Hazeyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:36:20 +0900

We putted our presentation materials of the ip traceback bar bof on
https://www.telecom-isac.jp/tb/index_e.html

Thanks,
H. Hazeyama

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:59:25 -0700

Are there minutes, or better yet, a conclusion?

Jari

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:32:28 +0200

I don't think anyone was taking minutes.

The just made the two presentations (traceback experiment and using this to identify BOTs based on their DNS requests). Both presentations are on the web page.

There were no ADs in the room. AFAIK no WG chairs either, which is somewhat a shame, so no conclusions either.

My own, personal conclusion was that this was interesting and has potential. There *is* work to be done (two different versions that they wrote did not interoperate properly) and since success requires wide adoption by ISPs, I believe that the IETF is probably the right place for this.  But these are just my personal opinions, and I have no idea if we can get enough people to actually work on this.

I suggest that the correct next step is for the authors to contact one or more ADs. Though this seems directly related to security, the fact that this would be a protocol that would run between AS edge routers, it could fall to other areas as well. So I think the next step should be scheduling a BoF for next IETF, and making sure that the right people are there.

On Mar 25, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:46:38 -0700

Yoav,

Thanks for the report! Additional comments inline:

Yeah. Sorry for not being in the room. I wanted to be there, but
already had multiple overlapping things on that timeslot... that being
said, the lack of ADs or chairs should not prevent conclusions from
being made :-)

The question in my mind is: is the world interested in this technology.
Previous IETF efforts in traceback failed IMO due to lack of
operator/vendor interest. We should not create new efforts unless that
interest surges again. Is it surging, and if so, why?

Jari

Jari

Thanks,
H. Hazeyama

thanks,
H. Hazeyama

Hi,

Day: Wednesday March 24
Time: 11:45,
location: TBD

Welcome to come for a discussion and suggestions and comments are
highly desired.

- introduction of the traceback architecture of the field trial in
Japan
(10 min.)

Best regards,

H. Hazeyama

---

From: Hiroaki Hazeyama <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:17:45 +0900

Dear, Yoav and Jari,
this is Hiroaki Hazeyama.

Now, I 'm writing the minutes of IP traceback bar bof. I'll submit the 
minutes to the 77attendee ML.

Also I'll contact to AD to open ip traceback bof in next IETF meetings.

Thanks,
H. Hazeyama

(2010/03/26 1:46), Jari Arkko wrote:
> The question in my mind is: is the world interested in this 
> technology. Previous IETF efforts in traceback failed IMO due to lack 
> of operator/vendor interest. We should not create new efforts unless 
> that interest surges again. Is it surging, and if so, why?
>
> Jari
>

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:40:32 +0200

On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> The question in my mind is: is the world interested in this technology. Previous IETF efforts in traceback failed IMO due to lack of operator/vendor interest. We should not create new efforts unless that interest surges again. Is it surging, and if so, why?
> 
> Jari

We've heard that attack packets now take up a significant portion of the traffic on the Internet. Specifically members of bot-nets create congestion for ISPs. There is a chance that now they would be more interested in deploying traceback technology than in the past, when Internet attacks were a problem only for the end users.

We have at least anecdotal evidence of such interest, in that 15 Japanese ISPs have agreed to participate in this experiment on their production networks. This must count for something.

Anyway, a BoF with the relevant people present is, IMO, the best way to gauge the interest.

So the next steps are to set up a BoF for IETF 78, and to set up a mailing list, where hopefully we can hear from the operators.

---

From: Chris Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:49:50 -0700

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Yoav Nir <[email-masked]> wrote:
> We've heard that attack packets now take up a significant portion of the traffic on the
> Internet. Specifically members of bot-nets create congestion for ISPs. There is a chance

where is this statistic? as near as I know/recall it's no where near
'significant portion' in general. Certainly there are times when
individual links see this as the case (mostly edge/customer links).

> that now they would be more interested in deploying traceback technology than in the past,
> when Internet attacks were a problem only for the end users.

probably not, no... the traceback options from the past nearly all had
significant penalties on the routing equipment in the network, that
was a showstopper then, and will be today.

> So the next steps are to set up a BoF for IETF 78, and to set up a mailing list, where
> hopefully we can hear from the operators.

hopefully announce it early :) I'd love to attend.

-chris

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:15:33 +0200

> individual links see this as the case (mostly edge/customer links).

I've heard it in some talks. There's also this, but it's not based on statistics:
http://sparrow.ece.cmu.edu/group/pub/studer_esorics09.pdf

Of course it makes sense that a DDoS attack against a particular network will cause congestion at the ISP serving that network, so the ISP may be interested in cooperating with other ISPs to detect the bots who may participate in such an attack.

> hopefully announce it early :) I'd love to attend.

Me too.

---

From: Chris Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:33:18 -0700

> http://sparrow.ece.cmu.edu/group/pub/studer_esorics09.pdf

"Abstract. Current Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks are directed towards
a specific victim. The research community has devised several counter-
measures that protect victim hosts against undesired traffic.
We present Coremelt, a new attack mechanism, where attackers only
send traffic between each other, and not towards a victim host. As a
result, none of the attack traffic is unwanted. The Coremelt attack is
powerful because among N attackers there are O(N 2 ) connections, which
can cause significant congestion in the network core. We demonstrate the
attack based on simulations within a real Internet topology using realistic
attacker distributions and show that attackers can induce a significant
amount of congestion."

this describes a potential attack scenario which in almost all cases
won't actually harm the network, most edge links are smaller than the
core facing ones on a reasonably built isp network. Certainly a single
endpoint can be overwhelmed, but I don't think this has been shown to
be a problem in practice (this attack I mean).

> Of course it makes sense that a DDoS attack against a particular network will cause
> congestion at the ISP serving that network, so the ISP may be interested in cooperating
> with other ISPs to detect the bots who may participate in such an attack.

as a person who did this for quite some time, and does it today at a
non-isp company... there are plenty of methods available to do this
today, already integrated into the infrastructure that providers use.

>> hopefully announce it early :) I'd love to attend.

sweet!

---

From: Ingemar Johansson S <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:45:56 +0100

Hi

I may be a bit off here but anyway..
DDoS mitogation has been discussed as application for Congetsion Exposure  (ConEx).
Links to the proposed charter and some problem description text is found at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/agenda/conex.txt
The first BoF session was yesterday, the 2nd session is today 15.10 to 16.10 in California B
I am particularly interested in comments as reagards in what way ConEx can be used in DoS ad DDoS mitigation.

PS, ConEx was BoFed already in Hiroshima but is re-BoFed this week

Regards 
Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir
> Sent: den 25 mars 2010 11:16
> To: Chris Morrow
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [77attendees] Bar BoF: ip traceback
> 
> >>>> My own, personal conclusion was that this was 
> interesting and has potential. There *is* work to be done 
> (two different versions that they wrote did not interoperate 
> properly) and since success requires wide adoption by ISPs, I 
> believe that the IETF is probably the right place for this.  
> But these are just my personal opinions, and I have no idea 
> if we can get enough people to actually work on this.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I suggest that the correct next step is for the authors 
> to contact one or more ADs. Though this seems directly 
> related to security, the fact that this would be a protocol 
> that would run between AS edge routers, it could fall to 
> other areas as well. So I think the next step should be 
> scheduling a BoF for next IETF, and making sure that the 
> right people are there.
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> The question in my mind is: is the world interested in 
> this technology. Previous IETF efforts in traceback failed 
> IMO due to lack of operator/vendor interest. We should not 
> create new efforts unless that interest surges again. Is it 
> surging, and if so, why?
> >>> 
> >>> Jari
> >> 
> >> We've heard that attack packets now take up a significant 
> portion of 
> >> the traffic on the Internet. Specifically members of 
> bot-nets create 
> >> congestion for ISPs. There is a chance
> > 
> Of course it makes sense that a DDoS attack against a 
> particular network will cause congestion at the ISP serving 
> that network, so the ISP may be interested in cooperating 
> >> that now they would be more interested in deploying traceback 
> >> technology than in the past, when Internet attacks were a 
> problem only for the end users.
> > 
> >> We have at least anecdotal evidence of such interest, in 
> that 15 Japanese ISPs have agreed to participate in this 
> experiment on their production networks. This must count for 
> something.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> So the next steps are to set up a BoF for IETF 78, and to set up a 
> >> mailing list, where hopefully we can hear from the operators.
> >

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:17:27 -0500

Just for future reference - I don't know where every single person with a 
dot was, but I know that we had the usual WG chairs activity immediately 
following the Wednesday plenary, with IESG and IAB invited, and this isn't 
the first Bar BOF that I've seen scheduled during that activity - it's also 
been a collision at previous IETFs ...

Spencer

> There were no ADs in the room. AFAIK no WG chairs either, which is 
> somewhat a shame, so no conclusions either.

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:29:00 +0800

> following the Wednesday plenary, with IESG and IAB invited,

I'll point out that this information isn't widely known.  Without making a statement about whether that is appropriate, organizers of these sorts of meetings cannot be expected to know this.

-- Martin

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:40:07 -0500

> I'll point out that this information isn't widely known.  Without making a 
> statement about whether that is appropriate, organizers of these sorts of 
> meetings cannot be expected to know this.

Hi, Martin,

If all of the Bar BoFs were happening in bars, we'd probably be having a 
different conversation :-)

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:08:02 -0700

Martin, Spencer,

> I'll point out that this information isn't widely known.  Without making a statement about whether that is appropriate, organizers of these sorts of meetings cannot be expected to know this.

I understand this problem. However, I'll point out that for many active 
WG chairs/editors and in particular IESG and IAB members the week is 
pretty packed. Publication of additional information about side meetings 
may not help, if there simply isn't other time to move sessions to. Just 
as a data point, yesterday for lunch slot I had two things that I wanted 
to be at in addition to the traceback Bar BoF. For the after-plenary 
slot, I had two overlapping Bar BoFs and a directorate dinner.

In any case, I'm not sure its a good trend that our Bar BoFs are 
becoming more like official meetings, with rooms, presentations, etc. 
I'm glad there are many Bar BoFs, but they should probably be held as 
informally as possible. In an informal discussion, it is much easier to 
admit that something is a bad idea, make drastic changes to the 
direction, find cool new ways to handle a problem, etc. And there should 
not be a requirement that an AD or IAB member must participate, for 
instance. I'm also thinking that it would probably increase the quality 
of these meetings if the organizers were required to buy at least two 
rounds to the participants :-)

Jari

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:46:48 -0500

Martin,

I know that what Jari is saying, is true, and has been for a while. I 
remember when I was still chair of PILC (which closed in something like 
2002), and Vern Paxson (TSV AD) was scheduling his entire week in 15-minute 
blocks.

Spencer

> Martin, Spencer,
>
>> I'll point out that this information isn't widely known.  Without making 
>> a statement about whether that is appropriate, organizers of these sorts 
>> of meetings cannot be expected to know this.
>>
>
> I understand this problem. However, I'll point out that for many active WG 
> chairs/editors and in particular IESG and IAB members the week is pretty 
> packed. Publication of additional information about side meetings may not 
> help, if there simply isn't other time to move sessions to. Just as a data 
> point, yesterday for lunch slot I had two things that I wanted to be at in 
> addition to the traceback Bar BoF. For the after-plenary slot, I had two 
> overlapping Bar BoFs and a directorate dinner.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:52:25 +1300

On 2010-03-26 10:08, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> becoming more like official meetings, with rooms, presentations, etc.

Rather to my surprise, I found myself running a barless bar BOF with
at least 40 people in the room, and we needed microphone discipline,
both so that everyone could hear and to avoid the discussion fragmenting.

Clearly, this discussion could never have happened in the bar.

That's what happens when you announce bar BOFs to 1200 people,
I guess. But if you don't announce them, and dont't use a decent
room, some people will feel excluded.

It's a dilemma. But I'd rather we avoid any rule making, except the
pragmatic rule that the secretariat needs a nod from an AD before
allocating a room, since that is a finite and possibly costly
resource. A bar BOF with rules doesn't seem like the right thing.

    Brian

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:04:40 -0700

I agree with Brian with one exception. I'm pretty against BarBofs 
meetings at the same time as wg meetings. Rooms and setup should not be 
allowed for Barbofs at the same time as wg meetings. Apart from that, it 
is useful to have barbofs/adhoc meetings.

Marc.

-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca

---

From: "J.D. Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:08:43 -0700

On Mar 25, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> I agree with Brian with one exception. I'm pretty against BarBofs meetings at the same time as wg meetings. Rooms and setup should not be allowed for Barbofs at the same time as wg meetings. Apart from that, it is useful to have barbofs/adhoc meetings.

+1

--
J.D. Falk <[email-masked]>
Return Path Inc

---

From: "Carl Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:19:48 -0400

I agree with Brian.  I liked the way that Aaron Falk conducted the so-called
"Internet Of Things"  Bar bof on Monday evening.  No slides and an open
monologue on the topic.  Then he took notes at the same time he was queuing
open discussion.  It was held in an open area outside the conference rooms
in circular format.  He made some concluding remarks and took names of
people to follow-up on.  In similar fashion, the bar bof on clouds was held
at lunch time slot and had also about 85 attendees and only 3 or 4 slides
were put up just to give a bit of background.  Attendees brought their lunch
and it was a very nice large room with people around large tables and seats
off to side for late comers.  Then there was nice queuing for discussion by
Hannes who aided the organizer to ensure open discussion.  The organizer
meet prior with Ads and IAB members to get advice and it was conducted just
to have some "open and initial dialogue" without the intent to form a
working group.  So these turned out to be very successful bar bofs without
excluding anyone and without pretending to be real BOFs.

Finally, the homegate Bar BoF in Stockholm held its meeting in a room that
was announced and then most of that group went out to bar (paid for by a
company sponsor) and continued to discuss the technical topics more like
traditional bar bofs.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 5:52 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: Thomson, Martin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [77attendees] Ad hoc meetings (Was: Re: Bar BoF: ip traceback)

    Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:20:31 -0700

On Mar 25, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Vern Paxson (TSV AD) was scheduling his entire week in 15-minute blocks.

That's true of many, perhaps most, in leadership. I'm still do it, and find myself this week having missed a number of conversations with people who approached me ad hoc that I would really like to have had, and simply didn't have time.

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:25:48 +1300

>> I agree with Brian with one exception. I'm pretty against BarBofs meetings at the same time as wg meetings. Rooms and setup should not be allowed for Barbofs at the same time as wg meetings. Apart…

-0.75

I understand the reason for that, but sometimes the nucleus of people for
a bar BOF have closely related interests and find a slot when they are
all free of WG sessions. The surprise for my bar BOF was that having
selected a slot which suited the nucleus of half a dozen people, >30
others decided to skip IETF sessions too. I wouldn't want a rule about
this either.

    Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:27:58 -0700

On Mar 25, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Carl Williams wrote:

> Finally, the homegate Bar BoF in Stockholm held its meeting in a room that was announced and then most of that group went out to bar (paid for by a company sponsor) and continued to discuss the technical topics more like traditional bar bofs.

Last night, between two bar bofs, I had a few bites at a meeting I happened to have a tenuous relationship with but otherwise skipped dinner. Each of them no doubt thought this was a solved problem, as one started late enough to eat before it and the other started right after the plenary, leaving time to go out afterward. But with the two together...

The last thing I want to do is discourage people from setting up ad hoc meetings to talk about things that interest them. I would humbly request that they consider their expectations of their participants.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:40:35 -0700

Hi,

the recent shift in what bar BOFs are has been bugging me for the last few IETFs. This week, it bugged me enough to write something down. Comments welcome.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-00.txt

Lars

---

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:58:36 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-00.txt

a "convener MUST buy 1 beer or alternative consumption for all invited attendees of the bar BoF" would solve lots of the problems you mention:

- reduce the number of attendees
- favor meeting in a bar
- gives a more informal way of communication

Klaas

> 
> Lars_______________________________________________
> 77attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:01:48 -0700

> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-00.txt

Lars, I think you're trying to distinguish between a "hash out ideas"
session and a "gather support" session.  I think the reason we're seeing
formal bar BOFs is because there is too big a gap between "hash out
ideas" and an approved BOF, so people are inventing intermediate
versions.  I've heard from a number of people who are intimidated by
everything it takes to get a BOF approved, so I'm not surprised if
people take an easy way to an intermediate state if it's offered.

A combination of making it easier to hold approved BOFs and saying a
"bar BOF" should not use IETF-paid-for facilities, even if they are
lying fallow, might take care of the problem.

Scott

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:02:39 +0200

>lying fallow, might take care of the problem.

If you're counting on the availability of an area director to provide advice or attend there has to be an upper bound on the scheduling as there is a scarce resource being exploited...

I personally would like to see some back pressure applied to the number of informal events formally requesting resources.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:22:19 +0300

Heh. Nice writeup. I can confirm your anecdotal evidence, as I stepped 
outside the hotel for the first time on Wednesday and saw the first 
sunlight on Friday afternoon :-)

But to get serious for a moment I have two comments. First, as I said 
earlier in this thread I consider the ability to make drastic changes 
very important at an early stage of an idea. For various reasons, 
powerpoint and big meetings may not be helpful in this regard.

Secondly, as Brian pointed out there is also an aspect of fairness and 
openness. Maybe you *want* to find other like minded people that you 
didn't already know. And those people may want to participate. So I'm 
not sure the answer is closed meetings, either.

Jari

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:44:16 +0200

On Mar 26, 2010, at 04:01, Scott Brim wrote:

> distinguish between a "hash out ideas"
> session and a "gather support" session.

+1.
Even though that may not actually be the most important distinction.
There are just different kinds of meetings, and some do benefit from a meeting room.

The 6lowapp "bar BOF" in Stockholm worked pretty well in spite of violating Lars' document in a number of ways, because

-- the large number of (active) attendees was indicative of the amount of support
   -- yes, we even had "the equivalent of blue sheets"
-- we had ~ 5 slides to pre-structure the discussion (well, Keynote, not Powerpoint :-)
-- we *had* a discussion, with a tangible result (a five-item structure of the subject)
-- we had a number of ADs there who further shaped the discussion (thank you ** 4)
-- we kept it short (~ 1 h)
-- we had a ~ round table and did not use microphones
-- we had beer :-)

Of course, after that meeting, we had a lot of bar and hallway meetings for the "now let's make all that more precise" phase, too.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:30:13 -0400

I am actually quite concerned by the number of Bar BoFs.
At IETF meetings, ADs have way too much to do.  When I hear reports that 
in order to fit folks in, ADs are having to schedule in 15 minute 
increments, and getting less than 4 hours sleep a night, I start trying 
to figure out what we are doing wrong.

informal discussions among people interested in a topic, for the purpose 
of figuring out a problem, and whether they want to work on it, is 
clearly very useful.  But we seem to be on a trend with two components
Far more BarBofs &
Quasi-formality of BarBofs.

This quickly leads to an impossible load even on attendees, much less 
leadership.  If what BarBofs are doing is such that ADs are a 
significant help, we need to manage this so as not to burn our ADs out 
from both ends at once.  (We as a community do expect that ADs will help 
new folks bring work to the IETF, since our community is hard to 
navigate.  But this seems to be getting out of hand.)

Yours,
Joel
Who skipped all the BarBofs in the interest of his own sanity.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:54:05 -0800

On Mar 28, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Secondly, as Brian pointed out there is also an aspect of fairness  
> and openness. Maybe you *want* to find other like minded people that  
> you didn't already know. And those people may want to participate.  
> So I'm not sure the answer is closed meetings, either.

Right.  I think keeping the process as open as possible
should be a goal and question whether the current rather formal
"informal" structure doesn't actually tend to make the process
less participatory rather than more participatory, since the
presentation format tends to draw lines between the people
presenting, and the "audience."  I'd like to see informal
gatherings stay as informal as possible, including not being
able to use IETF meeting A/V equipment.  I also think Scott's
point about the bar <har har har> on BOF approval being so
high as to create incentives for people to do the semi-formal
bar BOF thing is well-taken and merits serious consideration.

Melinda

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:24:28 +0200

On Mar 29, 2010, at 19:54, Melinda Shore wrote:

> I'd like to see informal
> able to use IETF meeting A/V equipment. 

As I explained, that would be a mistake.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:15 +0300

Maybe this was said before: the IETF seems to be over-organizing
things.  Bar BOFs used to deliberately be informal gatherings.
Maybe there is a need for more formal ones; maybe they are something
else.

But the IETF should not start formalizing informal methods.  What
next?  Do we do pre-Bar-BOFs as informal gatherings?  Will we then
at some point come up with agendas and room allocations for pre-Bar-BOFs
as well?

One thing not to forget is the perception from the outside how long
standardization in the IETF takes.  We should avoid causing statements
like "Well, you need to do informal opinion building, then 2-3 bar bofs,
then you get to do 2 BOFs, and then -- after 2 year, you may end up
with a working group..."

I see us overdoing it here.

Joerg

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:03:05 +0300

Hi,

...

yes, it did. Obviously, sometimes you need to run a larger meeting and for that, some aspects of the IETF process are useful. But it was pretty clear that you had several previous meetings in smaller circles (or maybe an intense email preparation) that made the larger meeting work well.

Lars

PS: Note that I very quickly threw this draft together the draft during the IAB plenary on Thursday, so it's written under the influence of having lived through almost a full IETF week. I'd be happy to work with folks to produce a more balanced/well-rounded -01 rev, if people think this is useful.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:08:08 +0300

Hi,

On 2010-3-29, at 20:54, Melinda Shore wrote:
> should be a goal

right. I didn't mean to imply that bar BOFs need to be closed, I meant to point out that controlling attendance, by more carefully inviting the folks you want, will let you run a more productive meeting. 

As others have pointed out, sometimes you need to run a large meeting (e.g., Smartgrid or 6LOWAPP), but that is much harder to pull together successfully than a small meeting.

> able to use IETF meeting A/V equipment.

Exactly.

>  I also think Scott's

The issue is slots. We simply have too many WGs to schedule more than a handful of BOFs at each IETF. We already have significant issues with overlap; e.g., we needed to practically re-run the CONEX BOF at IETF-77 because routing folks couldn't make it during the IETF-76 BOF due to WG conflicts.

Lars

---

From: Ingemar Johansson S <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:38:45 +0200

Hi

Three of the Bar-bofs I attended sofar are "transport negotiation" (IETF-75?) , re-ECN (IETF-75)  and Clouds (IETF-77) , non of them occured in a bar although "transport negotiation" occured at lunch restaurant.

"transport negotiation" and was quite informal and resembled my personal bar-BoF definition the most.

re-ECN was in a ordinary meeting room but was reasonably messy to be called a bar-BoF. 

The Clouds bar-BoF was like an ordinary BoF (with a mike and projector!), it was very well attended (~60 people) but I would dare say that only ~5 people said anything. I left after 20min as the whole subject was way above my head and I should probably not have attended it at all.

I guess Cloubs was much like a real BoF but it lacked an intro, which means that likely only the experts (everybody except me?) knew the necessary details, to me it was only a waste of time.

re-ECN was probably the most succesful bar-BoF as it has already resulted in 3 BoF sessions :-)

"transport negotiation" did not end up in anything, here I believe that there was not enough momentum behind.

Conclusions. Don't have any...

/Ingemar

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joerg Ott
> Sent: den 29 mars 2010 20:52
> To: Carsten Bormann
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Maybe this was said before: the IETF seems to be 
> over-organizing things.  Bar BOFs used to deliberately be 
> informal gatherings.
> Maybe there is a need for more formal ones; maybe they are 
> something else.
> 
> But the IETF should not start formalizing informal methods.  
> What next?  Do we do pre-Bar-BOFs as informal gatherings?  
> Will we then at some point come up with agendas and room 
> allocations for pre-Bar-BOFs as well?
> 
> One thing not to forget is the perception from the outside 
> how long standardization in the IETF takes.  We should avoid 
> causing statements like "Well, you need to do informal 
> opinion building, then 2-3 bar bofs, then you get to do 2 
> BOFs, and then -- after 2 year, you may end up with a working 
> group..."
> 
> >> gatherings stay as informal as possible, including not 
> being able to 
> >> use IETF meeting A/V equipment.
> >

---

From: Thomas Hardjono <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:58:58 -0400

> Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:30 AM
> To: [email-masked]

I agree with Joel -- too many bar bofs obviates/undercuts the purpose of real BOFs.  To me, if a Bar Bof needs projectors and slides, it means that (a) perhaps a mailing list should have been created prior, and (b) perhaps a real BOF would have been better.

Does anyone in the IETF keep track of data regarding the number of Bar Bofs VS number of resulting real BOFs VS number of resulting WGs established?

/thomas/

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:02:52 -0700

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ingemar Johansson S
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:39 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Three of the Bar-bofs I attended sofar are "transport 
> negotiation" (IETF-75?) , re-ECN (IETF-75)  and Clouds 
> (IETF-77) , non of them occured in a bar although "transport 
> negotiation" occured at lunch restaurant.
> 
> The Clouds bar-BoF was like an ordinary BoF (with a mike and 
> projector!), it was very well attended (~60 people) but I 
> would dare say that only ~5 people said anything. I left 
> after 20min as the whole subject was way above my head and I 
> should probably not have attended it at all.
> 
> I guess Cloubs was much like a real BoF but it lacked an 
> intro, which means that likely only the experts (everybody 
> except me?) knew the necessary details, to me it was only a 
> waste of time.
> 
> "transport negotiation" did not end up in anything, here I 
> believe that there was not enough momentum behind.

There is stronger interest in HTTP-over-SCTP now than IETF75.  
>From that Bar BoF we wrote
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-tran-announce-dns-00 
and a -01 should be available soon.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-00 is
what happens if we don't have transport negotiation (try 
IPv4, try IPv6, try SCTP, try SCTP-over-UDP, try TCP -- 
all at once).

-d

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:47:39 +0900

> too many bar bofs obviates/undercuts the purpose of real BOFs.

then i would take away the message that 'real' bofs are not meeting the
needs of folk trying to get work done.

randy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:51:45 +0200

> needs of folk trying to get work done.

I think there's some truth to this.  My recollection, and Randy can 
correct this if I'm wrong, was that the bar was set relatively high for 
an official BoF as space during the day difficult to find, requiring 
careful balancing of interests.  So-called "bar bofs" have always been 
part of the meeting in an informal way, but now it seems we are 
formalizing them in some way.  So long as the bar for their allowance is 
relatively low, I see no reason not to allow them.  But I am 
disappointed that they are nowhere near bars.

Eliot

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:04:35 +0900

at nanog and other ops meetings, but especially nanog, we try to have a
bunch of break-out spaces which are open all day, have net and chairs,
...

the goal is to foster and facillitate people getting together and
talking, working, arguing, conspiring, etc. and not going on some kind
of control trip about where and how they may talk, lest they promulgate
bad ideas.

randy, whose rantings you can write off to jet lag

--

ps: and nanog does not have a terminal room.  when is the last time you
saw a terminal anyway?  at ietf it looks like a work-place that could be
done in a a manner less like a cable/table dungeon.  e.g. one break-out
could have a printer.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:10:43 -0400

> done in a a manner less like a cable/table dungeon.  e.g. one break-out

Well, having some wired network is nice once in a while, too.
But I was disappointed when I went to the terminal room to download and 
print a page from the web, and discovered that our terminal room no longer 
contains any terminals/computers/anything.

-- Jeff

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:19:08 +0900

> But I was disappointed when I went to the terminal room to download
> and print a page from the web, and discovered that our terminal room
> no longer contains any terminals/computers/anything.

imiho, it is a fairly successful effort to see how uncomfortable one can
make a work-space.

but i suspect that it is just an anachronism to which no one has paid
attention for a while.  maybe it needs a new large committee beginning
with the letter I to to re-specify after three years and 19 documents.

randy

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:21:49 -0400

It may be time to take this to the normal IETF list - I think its 
general enough that the wider audience may benefit.

On 3/30/2010 2:51 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> correct this if I'm wrong, was that the bar was set relatively high 
> for an official BoF as space during the day difficult to find, 
> requiring careful balancing of interests.  So-called "bar bofs" have 
> always been part of the meeting in an informal way, but now it seems 
> we are formalizing them in some way.  So long as the bar for their 
> allowance is relatively low, I see no reason not to allow them.  But I 
> am disappointed that they are nowhere near bars.
>
> Eliot

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:29:42 -0400

BOFs have now often become the equivalent of Senate committee hearings: they are staged for the benefit of the senators (ADs and the IAB attendees), to convince them that there's a group of mature adults in the room who can get work done. (Or, conversely, for opponents of the effort to create doubts about the maturity.) It has become relatively rare for the BOF to do technical work - the emphasis is more process-oriented, focusing on charters. Thus, we naturally are looking for an outlet that is less of a project review/audition and more technical, with barBOFs filling that role. It is not clear that this division is all that productive, given the cycle time issues.

Henning

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:30:10 -0400

Eliot Lear allegedly wrote on 03/30/2010 14:51 EDT:
> careful balancing of interests.  

The threashold for a real BOF might not be too high considering how
important they are in the IETF, but people find it intimidating to
figure out how to do what they need to do, and seek other paths with
less resistance.

(Personally I don't mind at all that bar BOFs aren't near bars.)

swb

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:33:20 +1300

> (Personally I don't mind at all that bar BOFs aren't near bars.)

My bottom line is that we had better stick to the rule of having no
rules for bar BOFs, except that they can't camp in contracted meeting
rooms without a nod from the meeting management. They certainly shouldn't
have any right to expect ADs or WG chairs to be present.

I like Randy's point about having some FCFS meeting space available,
but that is probably just a financial issue.

     Brian

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:47:49 -0400

The name of the terminal room is clearly historic. Nowadays, it clearly 
doesn't provide that. But what it does provide is the trio of wired 
access, power strips and printers. If these are provided in another area 
with similar access and facilities, that would be fine with me.

     Tony

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:59:40 -0400

Having spent a good bit of time (some of it sitting next to Tony)
in the Terminal room, there's one more feature that's important
to me (and usually present):  peace and quiet.

sometimes, that's what I need most of all,
Al

At 04:47 PM 3/30/2010, Tony Hansen wrote:
>The name of the terminal room is clearly historic. Nowadays, it 
>clearly doesn't provide that. But what it does provide is the trio 
>of wired access, power strips and printers. If these are provided in 
>another area with similar access and facilities, that would be fine with me.
>
>     Tony

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:00:36 -0400

A few times over the years, I've made use of the FCFS breakout rooms. 
Their very name is an indication of their nature. They provide a place 
for a small-to-mid-size team to break out of the normal sessions that: 
provides room for the team to work, a guarantee of "location" that you 
can specify, and a quiet space away from the masses so you can actually 
get work done. I very much appreciate their being available from the 
secretariat.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:06:22 -0500

> but that is probably just a financial issue.

Well, I wouldn't dream of ratting Aaron Falk out, but when we ended up with 
approximately double the number of people for the IRTF Internet of Things 
discussion that we expected, and we didn't fit in the assigned room, we 
ended up in a large gathering area down the hall.

I thought that was one of the most effective ad hoc meetings I've seen 
recently at the IETF. It helped that it really was a "birds of a feather" 
session in the traditional sense - with no mikes, presentations, etc. The 
point, if I understood correctly, was for Aaron to help people who were 
interested in specific topics to find each other, and to self-organize for 
work together afterwards.

We cheated, and took our own chairs from the meeting room (and put them 
back), but I'm not sure we absolutely had to have chairs - what we did need 
to have, was a relatively quiet area where we could all sit in a series of 
circles to see and hear each other.

Maybe this is something to think about, in site surveys? We've been in 
hotels where there was no open sitting space except for the lobby, and we've 
been in hotels that did have that kind of sitting space.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT)

Having a room with adequate open tables is a real plus. I've been to other
confences with excellant wired access but insufficient space for just
doing some work with power, printer access, someone there to help with
connectivity issues.

Sure the name could change, but why bother. Everyone knows this just
the BYOT area now, but in the end still a terminal room.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Tony Hansen wrote:

> doesn't provide that. But what it does provide is the trio of wired access,
> power strips and printers. If these are provided in another area with similar
> access and facilities, that would be fine with me.
> 
>     Tony
>

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:18:37 -0400

> the BYOT area now, but in the end still a terminal room.

I saw _plenty_ of terminals provided in that room.  They were
terminations for electrical power and ethernet cables...

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:25:29 +0200

> Maybe this is something to think about, in site surveys? 
> We've been in hotels where there was no open sitting space 
> except for the lobby, and we've been in hotels that did have 
> that kind of sitting space.

The availability and usability of casual space is very much a part of site surveys. It is however one consideration among many as you might imagine.

---

From: Ed Jankiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:31:15 -0400

Terminal Room is part of IETF heritage.  Calling it something else would 
be like renaming the RFC Series.

This is an important source of entropy for newcomers.

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  [email-masked]

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:35:42 -0400

If we got rid of the Terminal Room, we would have to update RFC 4677!

Actually, now might be the time, given there's an update in progress:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-07>

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Ed Jankiewicz
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Terminal Room is part of IETF heritage.  Calling it something else would be
> like renaming the RFC Series.
>
> Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research Supporting DISA Standards
> Engineering Branch

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:50:08 -0700

On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
> Terminal Room is part of IETF heritage.  Calling it something else would be like renaming the RFC Series.

I think we should rename it the "teletype room."

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:16:57 -0400

On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> rooms without a nod from the meeting management.

They are subject to the Note Well. That is certainly a rule.

Regards
Marshall

> They certainly shouldn't

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:29:00 -0400

Huh?  Bar BoFs == informal discussions are subject to the Note Well?
Surely you mean BoFs proper?
--Richard

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:31:27 -0700

Hi Marshall,

On 3.30.2010 16:16 , "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [...]

Are they?  Should they?  I'm not sure.

I think that there is a value in unofficial meetings that are not under Note
Well, along the IETF.  I think that this was the bar BOF's original mission.

Arguably, I have been attending one "bar BOF" during IETF77.  It was
fulfilling most of Lars' criteria for a bar BOF: invitation only, not openly
announced, in a restaurant/bar, freely discussing stuff (including the
appropriateness of the IETF as a venue for studying that stuff), high
density of discussions, no ADs invited and none present.  However, it was
something different than a dinner between companies in the same technology
field.  It certainly was not under Note Well.

I would not even know how to desribe my contributions to this meeting, if it
were under Note Well and assuming I were forced to make an IPR disclosure
under BCP 79.

Stephan

> [...]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:39:59 -0800

On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> They are subject to the Note Well. That is certainly a rule

Why?

Melinda

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:44:05 +0200

> They are subject to the Note Well. That is certainly a rule.

That is exactly the sort of scope creep that should be avoided by not formalizing an otherwise informal activity at the IETF.

An informal exchange between two or more parties who happen to be at an IETF meeting is not an IETF contribution unless covered by one of the six note well bullets, we shouldn't need a seventh.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:45:04 -0700 (PDT)

What happens in the bar, stays in the bar, no?

"I think he lost count after the seventh or so drink, but I could be 
mistaken...."

;-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, [email-masked] wrote:

> That is exactly the sort of scope creep that should be avoided by 
> not formalizing an otherwise informal activity at the IETF.
> 
> An informal exchange between two or more parties who happen to be at 
> an IETF meeting is not an IETF contribution unless covered by one of 
> the six note well bullets, we shouldn't need a seventh. 
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:03:41 +0900

> I like Randy's point about having some FCFS meeting space available

or sign-up sheet on the door.  or further burden the tools folk and put
it online.

randy

---

From: David Borman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:05:54 -0500

Yes, you can't forget the heritage!  Another example is that the TLA for the Transport Area is "TSV".
			-David Borman

On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:

> Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:17:49 -0400

>> They are subject to the Note Well. That is certainly a rule

'any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is  
considered an "IETF Contribution".'

Bar Bofs involve ADs, are announced on IETF lists, and in other ways  
meet the requirements for an "IETF activity" under the
note well.

If you want a deeper reason, the IETF has rules for a reason and it is  
important that those rules cannot be evaded by, e.g., taking the  
activity off-site and having it in a restaurant.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:27:26 -0800

> considered an "IETF Contribution".'

I think this is pushing the definition a bit and leaves
the organization open to DOS attacks from nutters.  If
Paul and I are chatting informally in the hallway at an
IETF meeting, it's happening within the context of an
IETF activity but certainly not an IETF contribution.
If someone organizes a hallway chat with a bunch of
people and they end up in an empty meeting room, I really
don't think that's an IETF contribution.  It's not an
IETF contribution until it becomes, you know, a
*contribution* and not just conversation.  I agree that
the line is fuzzy but I don't think it's *that* fuzzy.

And I think we're not in accord on the AD thing.  A
bar bof needn't involve an AD.  I'm beginning to think we
should ask them to stay far, far away.  *Far* away.

> If you want a deeper reason, the IETF has rules for a reason and it  
> is important that those rules cannot be evaded by, e.g., taking the  

A design team is operating within the guidelines provided
by a working group and is an IETF activity.  A bunch of
people getting together and hammering out ideas about something
that might perhaps someday become an IETF activity?  That
doesn't seem as obvious to me as I guess it seems to you.

Melinda

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:47:13 -0400

> the six note well bullets, we shouldn't need a seventh.

If you and I want to get together in a Bar or other location, sure,  
that is not subject to the Note Well.

If you and I want to clear our get-together with an AD, arrange the  
schedule so that the AD can be present, host the meeting in an IETF  
room, set up an IETF mailing list to facilitate discussions, and post  
the list, room, meeting time and location to an IETF list to increase  
interest and attandance then, yes, I would argue that this is an IETF  
activity and is subject to the note well.

Let's look at IETF-77, at the first hits on an email search for "bar  
bof."

Clouds : Meeting Doodle poll posted to the IETF list. An IETF hosted  
mail list set up.
Bar BoF on Location Coherence : Announced on IETF list.  Held in an  
IETF meeting room.

Bar BoF: ip traceback : Announced on IETF list. Held in an IETF  
meeting room.

Internet Registration Bar BOF : Announced on IETF list. Held in an  
IETF meeting room.

I think that illustrates the point.

BTW, when I chaired a Bar Bof, the AD wanted me to announce that the  
Note Well applied.

Regards

Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:58:11 -0400

> field.  It certainly was not under Note Well.

And, for what it's worth, I would agree with you in a case such as this.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:06:22 +0800

terminal room is good for jetlag people who get up quite early would
prefer stay there.

-Hui

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:17:24 -0400

Excerpts from Marshall Eubanks on Tue, Mar 30, 2010 08:47:13PM -0400:
> room, set up an IETF mailing list to facilitate discussions, and
> post the list, room, meeting time and location to an IETF list to
> increase interest and attandance then, yes, I would argue that this
> is an IETF activity and is subject to the note well.

I probably agree.  If the use of an IETF list is an important aspect
of organizing a "casual" get-together -- i.e. without the use of an
IETF list the get-together wouldn't get the desired participation,
and/or the organizers are looking specifically for people defined by
that list -- then I would say the meeting should be under IETF rules.
However, if there is a group that is going to meet and they feel like
maybe they should tell a related community they are getting together
just in case someone else wants to show up, that's _probably_ okay.

It would be good to ask the lawyers.

Scott ... no, the other one.

---

From: Geoff Thompson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:21:52 -0700

>> They are subject to the Note Well. That is certainly a rule
In an attempt to keep the IETF in control of things that could be 
construed to have the appearance of anti-trust activities.
Also, to establish that the IETF has been diligent in keeping the folks 
at the IETF within the straight and narrow of legally permitted 
activities for competitors.

Meetings where competitors make agreements to cooperate are legally suspect.
Standards organizations have to exercise care to protect themselves and 
their participants.

Geoff

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:02:40 -0700

Hi Geoff,

Not sure I buy this argument.  And I'm a fairly antitrust-sensible person.

In fact, I would argue quite the opposite:

"A bar BOF is not an organized IETF activity, even if occasionally IETF
logistical resources are being used for convenience.  The IETF does not take
any responsibility for non-IETF activities.  Bar-BOF participants are on
their own to ensure that their behavior is in conformance with the law,
including antitrust law."

My hunch is that it all boils down to the question whether the IETF, as an
organization, wishes to see the bar BOF concept as an IETF hosted/sponsored
event, or just a bunch of engineers that happen to be co-located at an IETF
meeting get together to do something outside of the IETF's organized
context.  My understanding is that the historical precedence clearly is the
latter.  Even the TAO recognizes a bar BOF not as an IETF activity, but
lists it under "Other General Things", along with important subjects such as
hallway discussions, and the advise to never get between a hungry IETFer and
his/her cookies.  Just because, recently, name and spirit of a bar BOF have
been stretched to the point of failure (to avoid the term "violated"), they
have not become an organized IETF activity.

Stephan

P.s.: what's next?  The Scotch BOF requiring Blue Sheets?

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:42:13 +0300

Sometimes, it is also useful to have a printer.  And I was involved
in several occasions when the terminal room was leveraged for interop
testing.

And, looking back, the terminal room got much more lightweight (less
equipment supplied) and smaller.  So, there is a useful adaptation
ongoing.

Joerg

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:21 +0100

> P.s.: what's next?  The Scotch BOF requiring Blue Sheets?

Exactly. Too much pointless formality creeping in all the time.
That's a negative trend and is not IMO at all necessary.

So:

- Fewer to zero well-organised alcohol-free Barbie-BoFs next
time please.

- And more real bar-BoFs with no agenda and the alcohol option
for those that want it.

- If someone wants an empty room the secretariat should give
it to them if possible. Or you should just walk in and use
the space if no one else is there. We should just trust folks
for that, until there's a reason not to do so.

- Lars' draft should have security considerations. When a real
bar BoF lasts too long, there's much more chance of drunkenness,
loudness, questionable humour and other good things. With the
Barbie-BoFs, there's a higher probability of a full week's worth
of process-induced boredom leading to crappy security designs
being accepted.

S.

---

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:26:37 +0300

Couldn't agree more.

Joerg

---

From: Ingemar Johansson S <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:39:54 +0200

Hi

I actually like the bar-BoFs but to avoid that things get out of proportions I guess one can put it in one sentence. 
"Want to have a bar-BoF?, sure, go ahead but don't expect (full) support from the IETF secretariat or that ADs will attend"

I find the Beer thing less important though :-)

/Ingemar

> Sent: den 31 mars 2010 10:27
> To: Stephen Farrell
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > - Fewer to zero well-organised alcohol-free Barbie-BoFs next time 
> > please.
> > 
> > - And more real bar-BoFs with no agenda and the alcohol option for 
> > those that want it.
> > 
> > - If someone wants an empty room the secretariat should give it to 
> > them if possible. Or you should just walk in and use the 
> space if no 
> > one else is there. We should just trust folks for that, 
> until there's 
> > a reason not to do so.
> > 
> > - Lars' draft should have security considerations. When a 
> real bar BoF 
> > lasts too long, there's much more chance of drunkenness, loudness, 
> > questionable humour and other good things. With the Barbie-BoFs, 
> > there's a higher probability of a full week's worth of 
> process-induced 
> > boredom leading to crappy security designs being accepted.
> > 
> > S.
> >

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:54:44 +0100

> equipment supplied) and smaller.  So, there is a useful adaptation

Not entirely. While we clearly don't need rows of terminals, I regret
the dropping to zero. Sometimes one is at an IETF meeting without a
laptop for reasons outside one's control, and having one or two
terminals
in the terminal room would be useful. (This last meeting I managed with
a borrowed laptop and an iPhone - incidentally am I the first person to
have taken the minutes of a WG on an iPhone?)

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:02:12 +0200

On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> in the terminal room would be useful.

+1

> (This last meeting I managed with a borrowed laptop

Now there's another revenue source for the IETF (something which seems  
to have become the favored discussion subject, replacing cookie-sizes  
and chocolate-chip-quantity, lately): on-site laptop-rental?

> and an iPhone - incidentally am I the first person to

Can't speak to being "first", but having seen the minutes you took,  
Chris, it's even more spectacular that their quality seem to not have  
suffered from having been thumb-typed.....

---

From: Ingemar Johansson S <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:16:27 +0200

+1 

I have an issue with an overly paranoid corporate firewall that I am too incompetent to fiddle with. Which means that I am unable to mount the printer in the terminal room. So a computer or two in the terminal room would be appreciated.

/Ingemar

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas 
> Heide Clausen
> Sent: den 31 mars 2010 11:02
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [77attendees] terminal room
> 
> 
> > terminals in the terminal room would be useful.
> 
> +1
> 
> Now there's another revenue source for the IETF (something 
> which seems to have become the favored discussion subject, 
> replacing cookie-sizes and chocolate-chip-quantity, lately): 
> on-site laptop-rental?
> 
> > and an iPhone - incidentally am I the first person to have 
> taken the 
> > minutes of a WG on an iPhone?)
> 
> Can't speak to being "first", but having seen the minutes you 
> took, Chris, it's even more spectacular that their quality 
> seem to not have suffered from having been thumb-typed.....
> 
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:18 +0900

> I have an issue with an overly paranoid corporate firewall that I am
> too incompetent to fiddle with. Which means that I am unable to mount
> the printer in the terminal room. So a computer or two in the terminal
> room would be appreciated.

nanog has two laptops next to the printer.  they're mostly used for
boarding passes.

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:45:58 +1300

On 2010-03-31 13:27, Melinda Shore wrote:
> the organization open to DOS attacks from nutters. 

Actually one needs to read the full definition at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378#section-1
and decide whether it applies in a particular case.

But this is an IETF rule not a Bar BOF rule and the question
applies broadly.

IANAL, IMHO, YMMV.

    Brian

---

From: "Yao Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:22:34 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ingemar Johansson S" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [77attendees] terminal room

> nanog has two laptops next to the printer.  they're mostly used for

these two laptops seem not to be used for public ietfer.
I see that two staff are using it when I hope to use it to print something.

---

From: Dmitry Burkov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:19:42 +0400

On 31.03.10 17:22, Yao Jiankang wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]>

I simply asked them to print me twice and they did it immediately - no 
problem.

Dima

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:56:13 -0400 (EDT)

Count me among those who would like to see a couple of machines 
provided.  I had trouble printing from my laptop and used the help 
desk machine.  While less than ideal, the helpfulness of the staff was 
most appreciated.  Likewise, I've occasionally used the provided 
machines at NANOG and RIPE.

-- Sam

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:50:34 +0200

One of the things that would have helped a lot would have been if the printers had been discoverable from the the wireless, we know how to do that (dns rrs anyone) but it didn't happen for this meeting due to the division of labor in the noc. The printers themselves were actually pretty good despite being rented from the hotel (e.g. the hp cp3525 was about as generic as color lasers get)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Samuel Weiler
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [77attendees] terminal room

-- Sam

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:07:55 +0200

Brian,

> but that is probably just a financial issue.

There are different kinds of meeting space. We always have hallway 
space, though at times it has felt like we should have had more. E.g., 
chairs would be useful at times.

Then we have private meeting rooms. Using these does require AD 
approval, but FWIW my bar for approving these has been essentially FCFS. 
And no, I have not felt forced to participate the ad hoc meetings. I 
only participated the ones that I actually cared about. That turned out 
to be many, but that's another story...

Jari