Subject: Interop events & WG Chairs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 09:00:38 +0300

Hi all,

I was wondering what other chair's experiences have been with interop events?  Have you as a chair gone to the events even without an implementation to oversee the event, or to provide advice, etc?  Do we (the IETF) have any informal rules about this?  My feeling is that it might be wise for the chair to attend, but just wondering if anyone had any experiences with this.

thanks,
John

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 00:41:07 -0700

On Jul 1, 2005, at 11:00 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> I was wondering what other chair's experiences have been with interop 
> events?  Have you as a chair gone to the events even without an 
> implementation to oversee the event, or to provide advice, etc?  Do we 
> (the IETF) have any informal rules about this?  My feeling is that it 
> might be wise for the chair to attend, but just wondering if anyone 
> had any experiences with this.

I have attended quite a few, back when we were significantly testing 
PPP. There was a need to have discussions about how to interpret 
nit-picky rules in order to work out implementations. At the time I did 
that, I was either with an implementing company (someone else did the 
implementation, and I attended with him, and I was the chair), or I was 
invited back to run a meeting.

I think there is value.

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 09:53:30 -0500

I've coordinated the last several SIP and SIMPLE interoperability 
events.

I have found immense value in being there as a chair, and having other 
chairs
(and key document editors) present, with or without implementation. The
quality of WG output goes up as a result (the direct contact with that 
part
of the implementation community that doesn't participate in 
draft-forging
really helps chairs and editors understand where to put efforts of 
clarity
and it definitely helps put pressure on the problems hindering 
implementation
and deployment the most.)

At the start of each event, we point out all the people who participate 
in
the working groups regularly and ask that anytime two people get into
an argument about what one of the specs say, they let one of these folks
know - even if they resolve the argument themselves. This has given us
a lot of insight into areas in our documents where we haven't been as
clear as we could. And, of course, we occasionally find real errors in 
the
specs to bring back to the appropriate working groups.

At the SIPIts and SIMPLEts, most of the chair/editor participants have
been present with an implementation team from their company or as
part of an open-source effort. It has been unusual to have someone
present who did not have their fingers in code in one way or another.
The implementation community is pretty accepting of those exceptions
as long as they're adding obvious value (such as creating and 
coordinating
difficult test scenarios or helping explain difficult emerging 
concepts).

RjS

On Jul 2, 2005, at 2:41 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

>> implementation to oversee the event, or to provide advice, etc?  Do 
>> we (the IETF) have any informal rules about this?  My feeling is that 
>> it might be wise for the chair to attend, but just wondering if 
>> anyone had any experiences with this.
>
> nit-picky rules in order to work out implementations. At the time I 
> did that, I was either with an implementing company (someone else did 
> the implementation, and I attended with him, and I was the chair), or 
> I was invited back to run a meeting.
>
> I think there is value.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:37:46 -0700

When I hosted interop events, we always invited the chairs (and, 
heck, often the ADs) and it always worked out well. One word of 
warning: be clear when you do so what their role is, as well as who 
is and is not invited and/or allowed at the event. Some of you 
old-timers may remember when Randy Bush claimed that an event "was 
closed" at the mic at a plenary, and I had to jump up and point out 
that not only had he not bothered to ask the organizer (me), but that 
the WG chairs had been invited and were coming for free.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:05:17 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Interop events & WG Chairs
>
...

Interoperability events are valuable and there should be more of them.
However, I think that when chairs, ADs, etc. are present in that capacity,
rather than as implementors, the event becomes a de facto WG interim
meeting, and thus should be subject to the corresponding requirements.
Unfortunately, the rules for WG meetings don't seem compatible with
the realities of getting an interoperability event to happen.

Randy

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:40:38 -0700

Hi John,

I found that interop events combined with interim WG meetings were some of  
the more successful WG meetings we had in the WebDAV WG when I was  
chairing it.  The interop events stimulated a higher attendance and  
greater focus on actual problems rather than low-interest issues.  So  
obviously having one or both chairs there was pretty important.

It probably depends highly on the group, its people and the level of  
implementation and interoperability.

Lisa

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:00:38 -0700, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> might be wise for the chair to attend, but just wondering if anyone had  
> any experiences with this.
>
> thanks,
> John
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:34:42 +0200

> the realities of getting an interoperability event to happen.

They aren't WG meetings for several reasons
- they haven't been approved by the AD and announced as interim meetings
- often there are specific legal conditions that have to be signed for such events
- in any case, the IETF doesn't measure or certify conformance or interoperability,
    because that might create legal liability; we simply record interoperability
    reports.

That being said, I can't see any issue with a WG chair attending an interop event,
identified as WG chair, as long as s/he states clearly that it is not an IETF event.
And anyone else present would be wise to make all statements clearly as
non-IETF contributions... see Definition 1c in RFC 3978.

     Brian

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:01:00 -0700

>    because that might create legal liability; we simply record 

Exactly. Another reason: the events often don't have anything to do 
with a WG's current work, only its old work. There is a *huge* 
difference between a gathering that is supposed to help shake out 
bugs in a protocol that is being written, and helping foster 
interoperability for a protocol that is already on standards track. 
In the latter case, there might be some feedback that returns to the 
WG about lack of clarity in the protocol documents (can you spell 
IKE?), but there also might be none because the interop bugs are 
implementation issues, not document issues.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium