Subject: [arch-d] workshop reports (was: Re: IAB report to the community for IETF 103)

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 09:31:39 +0000

On 01/11/2018 07:25, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Given both the time it takes to produce workshop reports in RFC form and
> the occasional mismatch between the style of the workshop and the archival
> format of the RFCs, the IAB is now considering whether it would be useful
> to allow workshop organizers to consider other publication forms.  A web
> page maintained by the IAB on its own site, linked to the original call for
> participation, is one form under consideration. The IAB is interested in
> feedback on this approach and would welcome any thoughts on it; we expect
> discussion to take place on [email-masked].

Good idea. Coupla notes:

- some workshops are jointly organised with other bodies - don't
  insist on iab.org web pages being the primary w/s site in all
  cases, e.g. w3c's w/s tooling was better back when we did the
  strint w/s.
- it may be easier for some w/s organisers to use their own web
  tooling for pre-w/s materials, compared to getting write access
  to web pages @ iab.org; a model where the iab.org web pages are
  a clone of something else might be good
- do allow both web pages and an optional RFC at the end, some
  of those RFCs are useful in retrospect, e.g. to know who was
  proposing what some years down the road - there are some w/s
  things that are better well-archived which the RFC series
  achieves nicely

Cheers,
S.

PS: The email address in the quoted text may be wrong, it says
"@iab.org" and should (I think?) be "@ietf.org"

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 16:46:33 +1300

On 2018-11-01 22:31, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Good idea. 

Certainly a good idea to be flexible. However, if a workshop is a success
and comes up with specific guidelines or recommendations for the IETF,
I think an RFC is highly desirable, both to reach our community and
for archival. It doesn't need to be a complete workshop report - shorter
might even be better, with the full details in a web-based report.

    Brian

> Coupla notes:
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 03:56:42 +0000

> might even be better, with the full details in a web-based report.

I find the current IETF trend away from archival format worrysome.

If a workshop is worth holding, and is not held under Chatam House 
rules, it needs to be archived so as to leave a permenent record of the 
deliberations. This allows others to read a definative report of the 
thoughts of those present at any time in the future.

- Stewart

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 11:47:15 +0700

> On Nov 4, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> If a workshop is worth holding, and is not held under Chatam House rules, it needs to be archived so as to leave a permenent record of the deliberations. This allows others to read a definative report of the thoughts of those present at any time in the future.
> 

I agree.

I don’t understand that statement:

> format of the RFCs,

Writing clear workshop report is always difficult, this seems to independent of the form it is published.   The hard part is the writing, not the formatting.  Why does publishing in RFC format cause difficulties?

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 12:00:45 +0700

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:47 AM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Quoting Stewart Bryant
> Writing clear workshop report is always difficult, this seems to
> independent of the form it is published.
>

A small portion of the time in the production of an RFC is actually in the
RFC production itself, either by the authors or by the RFC production
center.  What seems to be more important, though, is that the archival form
means you have to wait for the whole to be ready before publishing the
report.  For a number of workshop reports, there are useful elements
available much sooner, and those can be relatively easily linked to the web
page created when the workshop is in preparation.  Since that site also
often has links to the submissions, the mailing list archive, and similar
context, having early elements of the report visible there seems useful.
See the IOTSI site for an example:

https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/iotsi/

Of course, you can then incorporate these early elements into an RFC later
when you are completely done, but there is a real question of whether that
will always add a lot.

The other issue is that some IAB workshops are joint with other bodies, and
their procedures and methods may prefer other toolsets.  The forthcoming
ESCAPE workshop, for example, is intended to be joint work with the W3C
TAG, which has a different set of document preferences.

The IAB hasn't come to a conclusion here, and I appreciate the thought
folks have put into the discussion so far.

thanks,

Ted

>  The hard part is the writing, not the formatting.  Why does publishing in
> RFC format cause difficulties?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:06:42 +0700

Speaking as the surviving editor for the MaRNEW workshop report which
happened in 2015 and was finally published in October 2018 (but I recognize
that every case is different) ...

>> thoughts of those present at any time in the future.
You're right. I think there's a tension between the minutes which are
usually available in weeks, in the cases I've been involved with, and the
workshop reports, which are ... not. Maybe that's a helpful point to push
on.

> when you are completely done, but there is a real question of whether that

You're also right, which would point toward putting up a working version
early and publishing a stable version later, except ...

> TAG, which has a different set of document preferences.

You're also right about this. I appreciate the work the IAB is doing to
decide what the right thing is, so that it can be done.

Spencer

>>  The hard part is the writing, not the formatting.  Why does publishing
>> in RFC format cause difficulties?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>