Subject: Re: [arch-d] IAB report to the community for IETF-109

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 06:12:05 -0800

Dear Internet Architecture Board,
At 10:34 AM 13-11-2020, IAB Chair wrote:
>IAB Programs
>——
>”
>The IAB has been working on refactoring its 
>programs. In analysing the current IAB programs, 
>the IAB identified two kinds of programs which 
>are quite different in their needs and goals. 
>Therefore, the new structure proposes to 
>separate today's IAB programs into Technical 
>Programs and Administrative Support Groups. The 
>aim of this effort is to increase transparency, 
>visibility, and openness of the architectural 
>work done by the IAB. A request for feedback 
>about this reorganization has been sent to the 
>[email-masked] list, see

The report for the announcement is for July.  Is this a mistake?

The Administrative Support Group is akin to a 
group of 10 persons providing assistance to a 
committee comprising the 13 persons.  That is 
different to the (IETF) directorates.  Using the 
IANA as an example, and based on what was 
reported, there wasn't anything significant from 
March to July.  I don't remember seeing any 
discussion of an appointment this year.  What 
does the IAB require assistance with?

It is commendable that IAB/IAB programs might 
wish to fix dysfunctions within areas of IETF 
activity by doing the work.  However, the role of 
the "Architecture" in "IAB" is for long range 
planning and coordination.  The intent of Section 
2.1 (RFC2850) is that the IAB is not the group 
responsible for doing the actual work or else 
that would not be labelled as "oversight".

The concept of "program" creates opaque 
accountability.  Has the IAB considered that?

I did not find anything in the report pertaining 
to the IAB representing the interests of the 
IETF.  Is there an explanation for that omission?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 15:29:50 -0500

Hi.
I trust you figured out by now that the notice of the report
contained the wrong link, presumably through the use of a
template that was not updated.  These things happen although why
no one on the IAB spotted it might be an interesting question.
The correct link, posted by Ole a couple of days ago, is

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/109/slides/slides-109-ietf-sessa-iab-report-to-the-community-for-ietf-109-00

However, one additional comment, prompted by your note, below...

--On Sunday, November 15, 2020 06:12 -0800 S Moonesamy
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The concept of "program" creates opaque accountability.  Has
> the IAB considered that?

I have the dubious distinction of having written the first
proposal for what evolved into the Program model.  That proposal
was far more radical than there was any chance of the community
accepting and probably just a bad idea, but both it, and the
version the IAB adopted and put into use around 2011, were
intended to respond to one key problem.  The problem was that,
as the issues facing the Internet became more diverse and many
of the participants in the IETF became more specialized in their
skills and interests, the IAB could decide some effort was
important and start work on it but then, as membership rotated,
discover that it no longer had the expertise to effectively
pursue that topic.  That had happened in the past; it was not
just a hypothetical problem.  Asking the Nomcom to select people
for expertise on one particular subject didn't work well either
-- there were a few cases in which someone was selected on that
basis who didn't want, or wasn't able, to contribute to the
IAB's other work.

So the idea was that, if the IAB felt that some topic was
important to pursue but didn't have the expertise to do so
internally, it could find relevant (and expert) people in the
community, pass the responsibility on to them, treat them as if
they were (non-voting) part of the IAB when that was important,
and arrange for reporting as needed.  It was not a requirement
that the IAB have more involvement than general oversight; if
several IAB members were actively interested in the topic and
considered themselves either expert or willing to learn, there
was no real need for a Program (even if the model might prove
useful organizationally).  By contrast, if IAB members became
part of a particular Program, the assumption was that they would
have no status except based on their expertise, i.e., that IAB
members would be no "more equal" than anyone else.

Finally, because the idea was shaped around Programs doing
technical/ architectural work, accountability didn't change: the
IAB should be judged on the basis of its technical and
architectural work; especially good(or bad) work should be
brought to the attention of the Nomcom; and the ultimate
evaluation of quality would be adoption of ideas and topics by
the IETF or the broader community.   Just as with workshops, a
report that was generally ignored and had no impact should be
taken as reflecting badly on the whole IAB with the Nomcom
having the unenviable job of figuring out who to blame.
Implicitly, if a Program failed, the necessary assumption would
be that either the IAB had not found the right people or had not
defined the topic appropriately.  In either case, I think there
was an assumption that the community was owed a more detailed
explanation than "shutting that one down" [1].

Because the RSOC had (or was perceived as having) administrative
and management responsibilities rather than technical ones, it
was never a good match for the Program model (at least as
originally conceived).  The accountability problems there were,
IMO, just one issue (or symptom) of the mismatch.

After almost ten years, the Program model has evolved
significantly from the original conception.  If that evolution
has taken us to the point where accountability is a large issue
--or to where they Program needs "refactoring"-- I wish the IAB
would address the question of whether, while it seemed like a
good idea at the time, it just didn't work out and the whole
idea should be dropped rather than assuming that surrounding it
with more process and rules would improve things.

    john

[1] Same observation about workshops that never lead to reports,
even if the report is only an explanation of why no conclusion
or recommendations are possible.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:10:17 +1300

fwiw, I think that the separation of technical programs from
administrative tasks is a great step forward, and overcomes
the slight discomfort I've always had about the IAB program
concept.

I think we can regard an IAB technical program as rather like
an IAB workshop that goes on for several years, with the same
properties: it's invitational, it has no authority, and it
is supposed to report back to the community with some
interesting information and suggestions. As John says, it
also has the virtue of surviving changes in IAB membership.

I don't think it changes accountability at all. The IAB
remains accountable for its formal decisions, statements
and publications.

As for admin tasks, I would always prefer that the IAB minimises
that part of its efforts.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 16-Nov-20 09:29, John C Klensin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 14:05:58 -0800

Brian said:

"As for admin tasks, I would always prefer that the IAB minimises that part
of its efforts."

[BA] In practice, the administrative programs have not worked well. The
RSOC is perhaps the most prominent example, but by no means the only one.

IMHO, the problem is not with the Program Model, but with the IAB itself.
With technical programs, post-Kobe there are checks and balances, so that
the IAB merely has the "power of the pulpit" - the ability to attempt to
convince the IETF community to move in a particular direction.

But with administrative programs, those checks and balances are often not
present.  This is because in some areas (such as RSOC and IANA), the IAB is
to represent interests beyond those of the IETF.  While that is good in
theory, those non-IETF interests are not well defined, nor do they in
practice have the ability to provide a check on IAB actions. Even if a way
could be found to represent those interests within an IAB program (for
example through appointment of non-IAB members), only IAB members have
voting rights.

Given these inherent problems, I would agree that the IAB needs to minimize
that part of its efforts.  The best way to ensure that this happens is for
the IAB's administrative programs to be examined one by one, with an eye to
removing them from the IAB's charter.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 14:29:10 -0800

Hi John,
>no one on the IAB spotted it might be an interesting question.

Thanks for sharing the correct link.  The two appointments which the 
IAB intends to make is actually for a Board of Trustees instead of a 
Board of Directors.

>However, one additional comment, prompted by your note, below...

Thanks for filling me in on the history.  I interpreted "program" 
slightly differently.

>with more process and rules would improve things.

Let's assume that the Program model fulfilled its objective over a 
decade ago.  It could do with some rethinking.  I agree with Brian on 
minimizing admin tasks.  It is, in my opinion, not unusual for some 
Programs to fail.  It is useful to understand why instead of shutting 
them done without any explanation.  As a response to 
Bernard's  comment about the "power of the pulpit", I'll pick an idea 
from John, i.e. "the ultimate evaluation of quality would be adoption 
of ideas and topics by the IETF or the broader community.

Representation of interests (re. Bernard's email) tends to be 
complex.  I doubt that it would be doable through a Program.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:36:20 -0500

Brian,

Certainly if what the separation really means is to eliminate
the bundling of [technical] Programs with administrative and
oversight functions, I'd consider it a good idea... and much
more consistent with what Olaf, myself, and the general
consensus of the IAB a decade ago thought we were doing.  My
concern was that the IAB might be taking another step in the
direction of substituting more internal structure, specific
definitions, and categories for getting substantive work done
(and, yes, for accountability).

If this is really "hey, some of this stuff that we identified as
"Programs" really doesn't match the original intent and is
creating confusion, so we are going to stop calling them that",
why doesn't the IAB just do it?  To take the longest-lived one
as an example, the IAB didn't need to consult the community or
make a big deal out of starting to call its liaison oversight
responsibilities (which existed long before programs existed) a
"Program" and doesn't need to make a big deal out of ceasing to
use that terminology.  

The problem there, as I see it, is that the IAB is feeling much
less responsible and (coming back to Subramanian's
question/point) accountable for liaison relationships than I
believe was intended when RFC 2850 was written in 2000 (and
indeed, although less specific, in RFCs 1358 and 1601 much
earlier).  If calling those liaison responsibilities a "Program"
helped cause that change then, IMO, the terminology change was a
bad idea because I think the IAB is responsible for consulting
the community when it is going to drop a responsibility.  But,
again, the terminology isn't really the problem, the actions are.

Granted that I'm getting a bit paranoid about such things but,
when I read that proposal, I saw, not a simple adjustment of
terminology but a further step in which the IAB becomes less a
single (and jointly accountable) body and, instead, more like
the IESG where different members are assigned primary
responsibility for different topic areas and keep that
responsibility for long periods of time.   Unlike the IESG,
where the necessity to have consensus about Last Calls and
documents force some cross-checking of each other's work, that
could easily turn the IAB into a collection of fiefdoms, a
decision on which the community should clearly be consulted.  

And, while the above was written before Bernard's note arrived,
I (perhaps obviously) agree with his analysis and the conclusion
that it is probably time to start examining the IAB's
administrative and oversight responsibilities to determine
whether they are necessary at all.  If they are necessary,
whether the IAB is the right place to house them if they are and
how they can be carried out in a way that is most effective and
transparent and accountable to the community.

   john

   john

--On Monday, November 16, 2020 10:10 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> As for admin tasks, I would always prefer that the IAB
> minimises that part of its efforts.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
>> template that was not updated.  These things happen although
>> why no one on the IAB spotted it might be an interesting
>> question. The correct link, posted by Ole a couple of days
>> ago, is
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/109/slides/slides-109-ietf-s
>> essa-iab-report-to-the-community-for-ietf-109-00
>> 
>> proposal for what evolved into the Program model.  That
>> proposal was far more radical than there was any chance of
>> the community accepting and probably just a bad idea, but
>> both it, and the version the IAB adopted and put into use
>> around 2011, were intended to respond to one key problem.
>> The problem was that, as the issues facing the Internet
>> became more diverse and many of the participants in the IETF
>> became more specialized in their skills and interests, the
>> IAB could decide some effort was important and start work on
>> it but then, as membership rotated, discover that it no
>> longer had the expertise to effectively pursue that topic.
>> That had happened in the past; it was not just a hypothetical
>> problem.  Asking the Nomcom to select people for expertise on
>> one particular subject didn't work well either -- there were
>> a few cases in which someone was selected on that basis who
>> didn't want, or wasn't able, to contribute to the IAB's other
>> work.
>> 
>> community, pass the responsibility on to them, treat them as
>> if they were (non-voting) part of the IAB when that was
>> important, and arrange for reporting as needed.  It was not a
>> requirement that the IAB have more involvement than general
>> oversight; if several IAB members were actively interested in
>> the topic and considered themselves either expert or willing
>> to learn, there was no real need for a Program (even if the
>> model might prove useful organizationally).  By contrast, if
>> IAB members became part of a particular Program, the
>> assumption was that they would have no status except based on
>> their expertise, i.e., that IAB members would be no "more
>> equal" than anyone else.
>> 
>> technical/ architectural work, accountability didn't change:
>> the IAB should be judged on the basis of its technical and
>> Implicitly, if a Program failed, the necessary assumption
>> would be that either the IAB had not found the right people
>> or had not defined the topic appropriately.  In either case,
>> I think there was an assumption that the community was owed a
>> more detailed explanation than "shutting that one down" [1].
>> 
>> Because the RSOC had (or was perceived as having)
>> administrative and management responsibilities rather than
>> technical ones, it was never a good match for the Program
>> model (at least as originally conceived).  The accountability
>> problems there were, IMO, just one issue (or symptom) of the
>> mismatch.
>> 
>> has taken us to the point where accountability is a large
>> issue --or to where they Program needs "refactoring"-- I wish
>> the IAB would address the question of whether, while it
>> seemed like a good idea at the time, it just didn't work out
>> and the whole idea should be dropped rather than assuming
>> that surrounding it with more process and rules would improve
>> things.
>> 
>>     john
>> 
>> [1] Same observation about workshops that never lead to
>> reports, even if the report is only an explanation of why no
>> conclusion or recommendations are possible.
>>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:42:31 +0000

Hiya,

On 15/11/2020 22:36, John C Klensin wrote:
> responsibility for long periods of time.

I never thought of that and nobody discussed that and I don't
believe that's at all in-play myself, so yep in that case I
think paranoia is not warranted.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:44:09 +0000

Hiya,

> removing them from the IAB's charter.

I think that's a credible proposition to explore. Be v.
interested were it to be raised at the plenary and/or
discussed more on some list. (I guess arch-d - even the
name of which seems ironic for this topic;-)

Two inputs to that:

- In my last 2 years on the IAB and in interacting with
IAB folks whilst on the IESG and otherwise, I have many
times heard people bemoaning that the A in IAB was more
for Admin than Architecture. I honestly can't think of a
time when any IAB member wanted more of that. (But if
they did, I'd probably have assumed they were joking and
forgotten:-) So some of this could well be pushing at a
very open door.

- The hard part may be to find someone else to do stuff
and to get agreement on that. The IESG already do too much.
Some of these things do involve other bodies (e.g. other
SDOs) where explaining change to 'em might be tricky. And
lastly, and most tricky: it might take way more effort to
agree a new setup than to just muck along with the current
one, and that effort mightn't be worth the gain. (*) I'm not
sure about that TBH and it may vary from topic to topic,
but it'd be worth considering costs/benefits before trying
to make too much change maybe.

Cheers,
S.

(*) As one example, the IAB being the IETF's "department
of foreign affairs" for liaisons has never made sense to
me personally, but almost all the liaison oversight stuff
the IAB does takes almost no time as the real action is
handled by ADs or WG chairs or by volunteers who happen to
be active in both bodies. And for some foreign bodies,
explaining to them that we're changing our end of that
bureaucracy may require a pile of unrewarding work. So that
may well be one better left as-is rather than risk creating
a new can of openable worms maybe;-)

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:47:45 +0000

Sorry, I should've said there: that concept of "reducing
IAB admin things" wasn't discussed by the IAB before Mirja
sent out that note. That mail was just me trying to see if
people thought it worth looking into. IOW, there's not a
big secret plan anywhere here, just a few bits of tidying
up, improving etc in the refactoring programmes stuff. But
if that shows the way to do something better as we go, then
that'd be good I guess.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 17:49:13 -0500

Good.   I always appreciate one less thing to worry about.  At
the same time, I was worried more about slippery slopes than
specific intentions at present, so I'm unlikely to completely
stop worrying.

   john

---

From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 07:16:20 +0100

Dear S. Moonesamy,

Please see replies to your questions below.

> On 15. Nov 2020, at 15:12, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> The IAB has been working on refactoring its programs. In analysing the current IAB programs, the IAB identified two kinds of programs which are quite different in their needs and goals. Therefore, the new structure proposes to separate today's IAB programs into Technical Programs and Administrative Support Groups. The aim of this effort is to increase transparency, visibility, and openness of the architectural work done by the IAB. A request for feedback about this reorganization has been sent to the [email-masked] list, see
> 

Sorry for the confusion again and also my late response. I believe that has been clarified in the mean time.

> 
> The Administrative Support Group is akin to a group of 10 persons providing assistance to a committee comprising the 13 persons.  That is different to the (IETF) directorates.  Using the IANA as an example, and based on what was reported, there wasn't anything significant from March to July.  I don't remember seeing any discussion of an appointment this year.  What does the IAB require assistance with?

As you can see in the current report there was also not any mentioning of these groups. This is because these groups are often/usually rather low activity, at least without specific events that needs reporting, and mainly provide specific expertise to the IAB when needed. However, we receive certain reports, also from IANA, on a regular basis which can be found in the minutes of the respective next IAB call.

> 
> It is commendable that IAB/IAB programs might wish to fix dysfunctions within areas of IETF activity by doing the work.  However, the role of the "Architecture" in "IAB" is for long range planning and coordination.  The intent of Section 2.1 (RFC2850) is that the IAB is not the group responsible for doing the actual work or else that would not be labelled as "oversight".

Responsibilities as described in section 2.1 are addressed, among other things like e.g. workshops as also mention in that section, by Technical Programs.

As such the intention of Technical program is to 
"make sure that [...] issues
   are brought to the attention of the group(s) that are in a position
   to address them” 
as also described in that section.

And that's also what we described in the text provided about Technical Programs:

"The primary goal of a Technical Program should be to raise awareness of an issue or question relating to the Internet architecture, or to consider whether there is a question to be answered in a particular area.

Technical Programs help the IAB to frame questions. They do not directly work to develop protocols, requirements, or use cases for new protocols, systems, or frameworks. If a Technical Program concludes that engineering or standards are required, a BoF should be considered to transition the work to the IETF.”

> 
> The concept of "program" creates opaque accountability.  Has the IAB considered that?

There has been already some discussion about this point. However, part of the restructuring is also to clarify these things. I think this discussion applies rather to Administrative Support Groups and as I noted in my mail to the [email-masked] list:

"Administrative Support Groups are the current technical plenary program, the IANA program, and the liaison program. Please note that the IAB is also in the progress of reviewing these activities.”

> 
> I did not find anything in the report pertaining to the IAB representing the interests of the IETF.  Is there an explanation for that omission?

I'm not sure what you would be expecting on this point as the report is summarising activities since the last IETF meeting.

Mirja