Subject: 76th IETF - DRAFT Agenda

From: IETF Agenda <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:57:28 -0700 (PDT)

The draft agenda has been posted on the 76th meeting web page
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/76/ for review and comment.  The cutoff date
for submitting requests to reschedule is Friday, October 9.

- 2009-10-09 (Friday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working
Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PDT (24:00 UTC/GMT).

- 2009-10-16 (Friday): Final agenda to be published.

- 2009-10-28 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PDT
(24:00 UTC/GMT), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool.

- 2009-11-02 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PST
(01:00 Tuesday, November 3 UTC/GMT), upload using IETF Meeting Materials
Management Tool.

Thank you,

Wanda and Marcia

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:17:00 -0400

Noticed P2PSIP is on Friday.

So I'll admit up front I'm whining a bit here, but is there some
effort being made not stick the same WG into the new Friday slots
repeatedly?

We (P2PSIP) already had a Friday slot at IETF 74. That means we are
now 2 for 3 on the last 3 IETFs on Friday. Personally, it doesn't
matter to me this time (I likely won't be able to personally attend 76
for personal reasons), but Friday slots seem to me to have
significantly lower attendance, and thus the ability to get work done
for the WG suffers. As chair, I don't like to see our group's work
affected this way. Seems it is part of the job of chair to advocate
for slots that make moving the groups work forward as easy as
possible.

Obviously I'd like to see if moved, but at the least, I'd like to
discuss some sort of fair sharing rotation...

David (P2PSIP chair...)

---

From: Brian Weis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:12:05 -0700

The KARP BoF and IPSECME WG conflict (9AM Tuesday). I know of two BoF  
organizers that would like to attend IPSECME, and I'm certain a number  
of IPSECME contributers would be interested in keying of routing  
protocols. It would be helpful if one of the sessions could be moved.

Thanks,
Brian

-- 
Brian Weis
Router/Switch Security Group, ARTG, Cisco Systems
Telephone: +1 408 526 4796
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:20:31 +0300

Hi,

looks pretty reasonable, but there are some conflicts:

MPTCP/APPAREA - APP folks may be interested in MPTCP (but this isn't  
critical)

HOMEGATE/6LOWAPP - two major BOFs in the same slot (it may be possible  
to swap HOMEGATE and FECFRAME, although one slot is 30min shorter;  
check with the chairs)

CONEX/RTGWG - CONEX will need review form RTG folks (it may be  
possible to swap one with NFSv4; check with the chairs)

APLUSP/TSVAREA - we may be able to move TSVAREA into an 1h slot  
(agenda currently light)

Lars

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:52:04 -0400

I think it would be desirable (but not absolutely required) to 
separate these two sessions:
- RTG karp Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols BOF
- SEC ipsecme IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:59:02 +0100

Hi,
I have a couple of comments

1). Can you please change the VWRAP slot to be MORG slot (the same 
length, just different WG).
2). It would be good to avoid conflict between MORG (formerly VWRAP) and 
SASL. For example, I think moving MORG to Friday would be Ok.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:02:08 +0100

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> 2). It would be good to avoid conflict between MORG (formerly VWRAP) 
> and SASL. For example, I think moving MORG to Friday would be Ok.

Or better to move MORG to Tuesday 17:10-18:10 slot.

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:31:54 -0400

> possible to swap one with NFSv4; check with the chairs)

That swap doesn't work well for me (rtgwg co-chair).

--John

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:48:24 +0300

> That swap doesn't work well for me (rtgwg co-chair).

Would you be OK if we swapped CONEX (and not RTGWG) with NSFv4?

Lars

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:13:06 +0200

Or else I'm ready to trade your 1h40-long RTGWG slot for my 2h15-long
PCE slot... on Friday afternoon.

Julien

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Lars Eggert

Lars

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:17:02 -0400

> Would you be OK if we swapped CONEX (and not RTGWG) with NSFv4?

Yes, that would be fine.

--John

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:29:58 +0200

Codec, pwe3, and ppsp are all meeting at the same time. I could easily
imagine some amount of cross-over between codec and ppsp. I also have
a more personal concern - I'm a draft author in pwe3, and want/need to
be in codec with my IAB hat on. I would like to suggest moving codec
to either the two Friday afternoon slots, or Wednesday morning.

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:37:18 -0500

On 10/6/09 at 10:20 AM +0300, Lars Eggert wrote:

>MPTCP/APPAREA - APP folks may be interested in MPTCP

You bet. If the conflict remains, I'll blow off apparea.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:14:58 -0400

Very kind of you I'm sure but for some reason I find myself not very  
keen to avail myself of the offer. :-)

--John

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:51:19 +0100

> You bet. If the conflict remains, I'll blow off apparea.

Sounds like blackmail. We want you in Apps, Pete :-).

But seriously, yes, this seems like a conflict that would be good to 
resolve.

---

From: David R Oran <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:27:29 -0400

On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:

> The INTAREA / HOMEGATE conflict is particularly bad.
>
+1 - this needs to be resolved.

> The stated areas of the homegate BOF are topics covered by
> INT area WGs (IPv4, IPv6, DNS, etc.)
>
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>> IETF Agenda
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:57 PM
>> To: Working Group Chairs
>> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> Subject: [IAB] 76th IETF - DRAFT Agenda
>>

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:35:54 -0400

+1, adding IESG

- Ralph

---

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:26:03 +0200

I also think that ppsp and codec should not be at the same time
Roni Even

> Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 6:30 PM
> To: IETF Agenda
> Cc: [email-masked]; Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [IAB] 76th IETF - DRAFT Agenda
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4488 (20091007) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4488 (20091007) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4488 (20091007) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:41:43 +0300

Hi,

I have a few comments below. Some of these have probably already been 
brought up, and I'm not sure any of it can be corrected -- the agenda 
for INT WGs and BOFs is pretty tight already, basically the only free is 
the one where you already have BEHAVE (and we want to be in BEHAVE, so 
that's great).

> MONDAY, November 9, 2009
> 0900-1130 Morning Session I
> Orchid 3     APP     apparea     Applications Area Open Meeting
> Acacia 1     INT     6lowpan     IPv6 over Low power WPAN WG
> Cattleya 2     INT     savi     Source Address Validation Improvements WG
> Camellia     IRTF     hiprg     Host Identity Protocol
> Orchid 2     TSV     mptcp     Multipath TCP BOF 

There are folk who are significant contributors in SAVI *and* MPTCP. 
Plus, I suspect the MPTCP folk may want some application area help, 
which the above setup prevents pretty effectively.

> MONDAY, November 9, 2009
> 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I
> Acacia 2     APP     6lowapp     6lowapp BOF
> Orchid 3     INT     intarea     Internet Area Open Meeting
> Cattleya 2     TSV     homegate     Broadband Home Gateway BOF

The INT ADs and a lot of internet area folk would like to be at 
homegate, and 6lowapp BOF as well. Out of all the conflicts on my list, 
this is the highest priority one to resolve.

> TUESDAY, November 10, 2009
> 1520-1700 Afternoon Session II
> Cattleya 2     APP     iri     Internationalized Resource Identifiers BOF
> Orchid 1     INT     ancp     Access Node Control Protocol WG
> Orchid 2     INT     mext     Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 WG
> Orchid 3     TSV     conex     Congestion Exposure BOF

It would be good if the co-sponsoring ADs from INT could go to conex. 
I'm at MEXT and Ralph is at ANCP. I can survive this conflict by 
skipping something of course.

> WEDNESDAY, November 11, 2009
> 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I
> Acacia 1     INT     aplusp     Address Plus Port BOF
> Acacia 2     INT     netext     Network-Based Mobility Extensions WG
Aplusp is Ralph's BOF but it would be great if I could go to it as well. 
Probably not easy to arrange that, however.

Jari

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:57:43 -0400

+1, I know quite a few folks likely to attend both the codec and ppsp BoFs.

---

From: "Gregory M. Lebovitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:32:51 -0700

one other note on KARP:  Pls keep KARP off of Friday.
[One of the presenters and IAB shepherd (me) for the BoF has a 
conflicting flight.]

Thx,
Gregory.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:08:34 -0400

humm, that excuse/request didn't work for us at the last IETF.

Somehow I think each WG would like to make a similar request...

Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:44:35 -0400

John,
	Not sure why you directed this to me, but since you "asked":
My position on Friday schedules is one of reluctant acceptance.
Although, my position will change if requests for rescheduling based on
travel preferences are honored.

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to request rescheduling based
on individual schedules. (I made such a request for an unavoidable
family conflict on Monday of Stockholm, - sorry, my kids trump IETF.)
But, IMO travel preference, and inconvenience, doesn't cut it as long as
we have the current Friday scheduling policy.  I'm sure most/all of us
who are planning to attend on Friday due to the current policy would
prefer not to be traveling on the weekend.

Lou

PS I always like the notion of a biasing the distribution of WG
schedules so that similar WGs meet on consecutive slots/days so that
it's easier to come for part of the week, but this is simply wishful
thinking...

On 10/8/2009 3:06 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, October 08, 2009 14:08 -0400 Lou Berger
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Lou and Gregory,
> While I agree, the IESG concluded that there was community
> consensus for fully-scheduling Friday.  If you (or others) don't
> believe that consensus exists, or is not practical, then I think
> it is up to you to make that case in some clear way.  And, fwiw,
> I believe that part of the IESG's conclusion was based on simple
> arithmetic so that, if we want to go back to a reduced schedule
> on Friday --or eliminate Friday entirely except for meetings
> that are special in one way or another-- I think someone needs
> to offer a plan about how to figure out which WGs don't need to
> meet (or need to meet for less time) that will let us get things
> done in four or 4 1/2 days.
> 
> And, to paraphrase the comment above, somehow I think each WG
> would be happy to say "some other WG should make the 'less time'
> or 'do not meet' sacrifices, just not ours".
> 
>      john
> 
> p.s. For the record, I've proposed things in the past that would
> force the community into serious prioritization of WGs and
> resources (including meeting time).  I also believe that
> scheduling Friday is not a solution because I believe that "we
> have so much demand for slots that we need to schedule Friday"
> leads us down a path toward "we have so much demand for slots
> that we need to schedule Saturday and/or a more-than-one-week
> meeting".  But neither of those arguments went anywhere, so
> Friday is what we have.
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:56:03 -0400

John,
	We *are* in agreement.  Including your comments on "both weekends".
This is exactly the point that lead me to the biasing/grouping approach
I mentioned in my last mail.

Lou

On 10/8/2009 3:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, October 08, 2009 15:44 -0400 Lou Berger
>> 	Not sure why you directed this to me,
> 
> Because you set yourself up as a target by commenting on
> Gregory's note. :-)

Fair enough....

>> but since you "asked":
>> Although, my position will change if requests for rescheduling
>> based on travel preferences are honored.
>>
>> I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to request
>> rescheduling based on individual schedules. (I made such a
>> request for an unavoidable family conflict on Monday of
>> Stockholm, - sorry, my kids trump IETF.) But, IMO travel
>> preference, and inconvenience, doesn't cut it as long as we
>> have the current Friday scheduling policy.  I'm sure most/all
>> of us who are planning to attend on Friday due to the current
>> policy would prefer not to be traveling on the weekend.
> 
> We are in complete agreement, except I would have said "would
> prefer to not be traveling on _both_ weekends".  In terms of any
> of the relationships sometimes described as "having a life", one
> or the other would be a lot easier to take than "both" and
> all-day scheduling Monday and Friday (and, for many of us,
> Sunday evening commitments) equates to "both".
> 
> But the IESG made the decision and, like you, I reluctantly
> accept it as long as Friday is treated just like another day
> rather than letting some people or WGs opt-out.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:02:18 -0700

It seems like a poor basis for moving a meeting...

the rest of us who have meetings on friday are expected to suffer.

joel

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 21:12:24 -0700

> the rest of us who have meetings on friday are expected to suffer.

+1

Bob

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:06:14 -0400

Lou and Gregory,

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:52:55 -0400

john

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:24:14 -0400

I agree that all the days we have sessions have to be treated more or
less the same (i.e., you can't opt out!), but I disagree in one way.
The Friday should be (since it is the reality, since many folks skip
Fridays) viewed as a less desirable slot, and "shared" accordingly. I
complained that my WG had both 74 and 76 on Friday when the schedule
first came out, and looking back it was actually 71 as well, so we
(P2PSIP) are 50% on Fridays -- 3 of 6 -- since the Friday slots were
instituted.

I know that scheduling is extremely hard, and moving things at this
point isn't really reasonable, but I'd like to make a suggestion going
forward. I'd like to ask the folks scheduling that, unless we decide
to go with a system where the ADs rank who is important and who isn't,
we try to better balance out the Friday slot among all WGs (as one
factor among many that are considered, of course!).

I'm not sure who to suggest that to, but since this thread now
includes just about everybody involved, hopefully the right folks see
my suggestion.

Thanks!

David

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:00:23 -0400

Do we use conflict matrix software, similar to high school scheduling?
That type of software considers how many people want to attend which
sessions, which people MUST attend, and what rooms are available and
suitable. It uses a fairly clear and consistent algorithm for
prioritizing scheduling decisions. In this case, technology could help
to implement policy, and hopefully reduce the requests for adjustments
once the draft agenda is published. 

As far as I can see, the main change we would need to make is to ask
people when they register which WGs they want to attend, and possibly
to prioritize the WGs they want to attend.

Is there a reason this isn't asked as part of registration?

dbh

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of David A. Bryan
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 2:24 PM
> To: John C Klensin
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; IETF Agenda; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; Gregory M. Lebovitz

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:34:56 +0200

If you really want a Friday to be or not to be discussion, I would point out that scheduling a group on Friday is actually better in getting commitment than having the last slot of Thursday.

I used to find when I had that last Thursday slot that people that were skipping Friday took the last plane on Thursday, which meant they essentially skipped the last WG slot of Thursday.

Count your blessings.

regards

Keith

> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 7:24 PM
> To: John C Klensin
> I agree that all the days we have sessions have to be treated 
> more or less the same (i.e., you can't opt out!), but I 
> disagree in one way.
> Fridays) viewed as a less desirable slot, and "shared" 
> accordingly. I complained that my WG had both 74 and 76 on 
> Friday when the schedule first came out, and looking back it 
> was actually 71 as well, so we
> (P2PSIP) are 50% on Fridays -- 3 of 6 -- since the Friday 
> slots were instituted.
> 
> I know that scheduling is extremely hard, and moving things 
> at this point isn't really reasonable, but I'd like to make a 
> suggestion going forward. I'd like to ask the folks 
> scheduling that, unless we decide to go with a system where 
> the ADs rank who is important and who isn't, we try to better 
> balance out the Friday slot among all WGs (as one factor 
> among many that are considered, of course!).
> 
> I'm not sure who to suggest that to, but since this thread 
> now includes just about everybody involved, hopefully the 
> right folks see my suggestion.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> David
> 
> > Because you set yourself up as a target by commenting on Gregory's 
> > note. :-)
> >
> >> but since you "asked":
> >> Although, my position will change if requests for 
> rescheduling based 
> >> on travel preferences are honored.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to request rescheduling 
> >> based on individual schedules. (I made such a request for an 
> >> unavoidable family conflict on Monday of Stockholm, - 
> sorry, my kids 
> >> trump IETF.) But, IMO travel preference, and 
> inconvenience, doesn't 
> >> cut it as long as we have the current Friday scheduling 
> policy.  I'm 
> >> sure most/all of us who are planning to attend on Friday 
> due to the 
> >> current policy would prefer not to be traveling on the weekend.
> >
> > We are in complete agreement, except I would have said 
> "would prefer 
> > to not be traveling on _both_ weekends".  In terms of any of the 
> > relationships sometimes described as "having a life", one 
> or the other 
> > would be a lot easier to take than "both" and all-day scheduling 
> > Monday and Friday (and, for many of us, Sunday evening commitments) 
> > equates to "both".
> >
> accept it 
> > as long as Friday is treated just like another day rather 
> than letting 
> > some people or WGs opt-out.
> >
> >    john
> >
> >
>

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 23:11:26 -0400

Given the scheduling difficulties, I don't see any reasonable alternative to having Friday be a regular day of IETF meetings (at least through noon or 3pm). Each of us needs to schedule our travel accordingly. I don't like losing parts of two consecutive weekends any more than other people do, but it seems to be the best option. 

I have wondered whether we should intentionally schedule the most popular and/or best attended working groups on Friday, so that people will get the point that it is a regular day of the IETF. 

Ross  (speaking as an individual giving just my individual opinion). 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of David A. Bryan
Sent: 09 October 2009 14:24
To: John C Klensin
Cc: [email-masked]; Working Group Chairs; IETF Agenda; [email-masked]; Gregory M. Lebovitz
Subject: Re: [IAB] 76th IETF - DRAFT Agenda

Thanks!

David

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:20:44 -0700

> I have wondered whether we should intentionally schedule the most popular and/or best attended working groups on Friday, so that people will get the point that it is a regular day of the IETF.

I'm not arguing with the consensus that we should have WGs meet on Friday,
but maybe it would be appropriate to share the pain a bit. If WGs are meeting
on Friday more than every 5 IETFs or so, that seems a bit unfair. Perhaps
it would be appropriate to "penalize" WGs in the scheduling so that if you
have been on Friday in a previous few IETFs, we try to avoid selecting
them for future Fridays.

-Ekr

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:31:22 +0900

Some other ideas (completely off the top of my head):

- Schedule the second slot for those WGs that need two slots on Fridays. 
That might reduce the number of slots requested.

- (assuming there are quite some people who don't need to be there on 
Sunday, which may not be true): Try to schedule things so that most 
people have to be there only either on Monday or Friday.

- Schedule meetings by expected attendance (those with most attendance 
Tue-Thu, the rest Monday and Friday).

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/10/10 12:20, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Ross Callon<[email-masked]>  wrote:

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:26:49 -0400

The upside of a Friday meeting is the you get far fewer attendees just
attending to get email access.
That means you can use the session to do real work, ala the IETF
before wireless.

A WG I co-chaired routinely needed two sessions - and we had one on
Friday by request.
The first session we used to review status, explain open issues, and
hear new proposals; in the Friday session we resolved the outstanding
issues. And the (fewer) people in the room on Friday had usually done
the readings and were prepared to debate the details.

dbh

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:21 PM
> To: Ross Callon
> Cc: Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; John C 
> Klensin; IETF Agenda; Gregory M. Lebovitz
> > Given the scheduling difficulties, I don't see any 
> reasonable alternative to having Friday be a regular day of 
> IETF meetings (at least through noon or 3pm). Each of us 
> needs to schedule our travel accordingly. I don't like losing 
> parts of two consecutive weekends any more than other people 
> do, but it seems to be the best option.
> >
> > I have wondered whether we should intentionally schedule 
> the most popular and/or best attended working groups on 
> Friday, so that people will get the point that it is a 
> regular day of the IETF.
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:30:25 -0700

Hi -

> From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Eric Rescorla'" <[email-masked]>; "'Ross Callon'" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "'Working Group Chairs'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "'John C Klensin'" <[email-masked]>; "'IETF
Agenda'" <[email-masked]>; "'Gregory M. Lebovitz'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 7:26 AM
> Subject: RE: [IAB] 76th IETF - DRAFT Agenda
>
...

This has been my experience as well.  Friday morning is an excellent time
to schedule a BOF or WG meeting when you want to find out who really
*cares* about the work, rather than just being "interested".

Randy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:37:53 +0200

> meeting".  But neither of those arguments went anywhere, so

While I am not in favor of re-opening this debate, I would be in favor 
of collecting data on the quality of each working group meeting so that 
we could know whether there are slots elsewhere in the schedule that 
could be used better.  Or not.  Perhaps everyone is using their time 
productively.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:07:28 +0200

On 10/12/09 3:18 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Do you have objective measurement for the the quality of a meeting?
>    

Well, I'm uncomfortable with you slipping in the word "objective".  I'd 
prefer to start off with a qualitative assessment without the objective 
part and work toward where you're aiming, but since you asked, here's my 
take:

1.  Has the meeting ended early?  This happens, and it's an indicator 
that the chairs asked for too much time, and should be granted LESS time 
the next time.
2.  Are there any disagreements?  If there are no disagreements, then 
why bother meeting?  Isn't a mailing list good enough?  These can and 
should be identified in advance on the mailing list, and placed on the 
agenda.  Presenting proposals at a WG without having done this work 
leads to a lot of time being wasted.
2a.  Was there any discussion?  No discussion?  The meeting could have 
been a VOD, and the WG should get less time.  The classic case here is 
when people present new drafts.  New drafts shouldn't be presented at 
F2Fs, IMHO.

So.  Think TCP.  Behave well and require more time, and more time shall 
be given, up to a limit of fairness.  Behave poorly, and your window 
gets shrunk.

Eliot

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:45:38 -0400

Hi,

I reduced the cc:s, and changed the subject line since we seem to be
off on a side topic.
Not surprisingly, I am not convinced your strawman metrics are the
right metrics.

> that the chairs asked for too much time, and should be 

Or that they were given a larger slot than requested.
Or that the loud-mouth proponents for one sode in the major debate did
not attend the meeting.
Or that the mailing list reached consensus AFTER the slot was
scheduled
Or that the major players reached consensus, possibly earlier in the
week, and there was little left to discuss

> leads to a lot of time being wasted.

I agree that a F2F meeting is no substitute for effective mailing list
discussions.
But I don't agree that effective mailing list discussions obviates the
need for F2F meetings.
Sometimes the people who attend F2F meetings do not participate on the
ML, but are significantly impacted by the standards directions. The
F2F gives them a chance to understand the progress and direction of
the work, and gives them an opportunity to provide feedback.

> when people present new drafts.  New drafts shouldn't be presented
at 

I disagree. 
Often a F2F presentation helps people visualize a new proposal much
better than emails.
I don't think people should give presentations for the sake of giving
presentations.
I do think some presentations for new drafts can help the WG
understand the proposals bettter.

Chairs have the responsibility for assessing which presentations are
likely to be useful to the WG, and whether specific presenters are
presenting to "make a name for themelves" or to impress their boss, or
are presenting to help educate the WG.

I don't think disagreements are the only reason to have a meeting.
Presentations can help to explain the WG technical strategy to the
occasional attendees, who often represent companies that will need to
be convinced the technology should be implemented. Occasional
attendees are like the technical representatives from potential
customers listening to a product presentation. Presentations,
including copies of the slides from the proceedings, can help company
representatives educate their company about the emerging standard and
its features, to elicit technical feedback from product engineers and
product managers, or to convince the company to implement the emerging
standard. 

If new-draft authors are not allowed to present their ideas, then you
increase the chance there will be no discussion. Maybe their
presentations will cause people to question existing assumptions.

> gets shrunk.

I think the area directors pay attention to ho wmuch time the WGs in
their areas get, and if there is a crunch, they can talk to the chairs
about reducing requested time, and ask the chairs what the F2F is
going to accomplish.

I would not want to see [email-masked] making automated decisions
based on questions like "did the session end early last time?" 
Effectiveness analysis belongs in the hands of the chairs and ADs.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:49:08 +0200

On Oct 12, 2009, at 14:07, Eliot Lear wrote:

> Well, I'm uncomfortable with you slipping in the word "objective".   
> I'd prefer to start off with a qualitative assessment without the  
> objective part and work toward where you're aiming, but since you  
> asked, here's my take:
>
> 1.  Has the meeting ended early?  This happens, and it's an  
> indicator that the chairs asked for too much time, and should be  
> granted LESS time the next time.

It might as well be a chair being an efficient leader for a change, or  
some usual dissenter (crying baby) not showing up.
Hard to measure.
(And I don't want chairs dragging out meetings to a precision landing  
just so they don't get a budget cut.)

> 2.  Are there any disagreements?  If there are no disagreements,  
> then why bother meeting?  Isn't a mailing list good enough?  These  
> can and should be identified in advance on the mailing list, and  
> placed on the agenda.  Presenting proposals at a WG without having  
> done this work leads to a lot of time being wasted.

*Ensuring* there are no disagreements is also one possible objective  
-- f2f is still be best way to nail down consensus.
So, again, this is hard to measure.
(And I don't want chairs to simulate, or worse, incite disagreement  
just so they don't get a budget cut.)

> 2a.  Was there any discussion?  No discussion?  The meeting could  
> have been a VOD, and the WG should get less time.  The classic case  
> here is when people present new drafts.  New drafts shouldn't be  
> presented at F2Fs, IMHO.

If you just want input from the existing active and vocal members of  
the WG, yes.
The IETF used to be a place where there were generalists, and a f2f WG  
meeting is a good way to pull them in.
I don't agree with the ideology that that's always a waste of time.
(Also, "presenting a draft" is a way to jog the memories and activate  
the neurons of those present, if done right.)

(Of course, I generally mostly agree with all your points, except when  
they are stated as absolutes.
They make lousy performance indicators, though.)

Gruesse, Carsten

PS.: I made a half-hearted attempt to prune the CC list, sorry.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:24:13 +0200

I largely agree with the points made by David, but my question is
whether we do have another alternative list of criteria. Or whether we
need one. Maybe the only criteria for effectiveness is whether the WG
made progress during the meeting that they could not have made without
meeting face-to-face. The rest is details, including whether 100% of the
meeting time was used. Actually as an AD I am discussing meeting plans
with the WG chairs and sometimes I encourage them to ask for a little
extra-time, exactly to make sure that no critical subject is left out,
or there is some time left to discuss new ideas face-to-face. 

Dan

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: 'Eliot Lear'
> Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'
> Subject: meeting effectiveness
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I reduced the cc:s, and changed the subject line since we 
> seem to be off on a side topic.
> Not surprisingly, I am not convinced your strawman metrics 
> are the right metrics.
> 
> > asked, here's my
> indicator 
> > that the chairs asked for too much time, and should be granted LESS 
> > time the next time.
> 
> Or that the loud-mouth proponents for one sode in the major 
> debate did not attend the meeting.
> scheduled Or that the major players reached consensus, 
> possibly earlier in the week, and there was little left to discuss
> 
> then 
> I agree that a F2F meeting is no substitute for effective 
> mailing list discussions.
> But I don't agree that effective mailing list discussions 
> obviates the need for F2F meetings.
> Sometimes the people who attend F2F meetings do not 
> participate on the ML, but are significantly impacted by the 
> standards directions. The F2F gives them a chance to 
> understand the progress and direction of the work, and gives 
> them an opportunity to provide feedback.
> 
> Often a F2F presentation helps people visualize a new 
> proposal much better than emails.
> I don't think people should give presentations for the sake 
> of giving presentations.
> Chairs have the responsibility for assessing which 
> presentations are likely to be useful to the WG, and whether 
> specific presenters are presenting to "make a name for 
> themelves" or to impress their boss, or are presenting to 
> help educate the WG.
> 
> Presentations can help to explain the WG technical strategy 
> to the occasional attendees, who often represent companies 
> that will need to be convinced the technology should be 
> implemented. Occasional attendees are like the technical 
> representatives from potential customers listening to a 
> product presentation. Presentations, including copies of the 
> slides from the proceedings, can help company representatives 
> educate their company about the emerging standard and its 
> features, to elicit technical feedback from product engineers 
> and product managers, or to convince the company to implement 
> the emerging standard. 
> 
> If new-draft authors are not allowed to present their ideas, 
> then you increase the chance there will be no discussion. 
> Maybe their presentations will cause people to question 
> existing assumptions.
> 
> > 
> > So.  Think TCP.  Behave well and require more time, and more time 
> > shall be given, up to a limit of fairness.  Behave poorly, and your 
> > window
> 
> > gets shrunk.
> 
> I think the area directors pay attention to ho wmuch time the 
> WGs in their areas get, and if there is a crunch, they can 
> talk to the chairs about reducing requested time, and ask the 
> chairs what the F2F is going to accomplish.
> 
> I would not want to see [email-masked] making automated 
> decisions based on questions like "did the session end early 
> last time?"

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:48:58 +0200

> Not surprisingly, I am not convinced your strawman metrics are the

Good.  That makes at least a qualitative assessment of how things are 
even more useful.  And perhaps this is a worthy discussion point in 
person ;-)
> week, and there was little left to discuss

The result of all of this is the same: reduced time the next time around.
>> why bother meeting?  Isn't a mailing list good enough?  These can
>>      
> and
>    

That would be a mischaracterization of what I said.  I don't believe 
that effective mailing list management and preparation for meetings 
obviates their need either.  What I do believe is that ineffective 
mailing list management and poor preparation make for wasted time at 
F2Fs.  In fact I've observed it.  Repeatedly.

> the work, and gives them an opportunity to provide feedback.

I recognize that different people work more effectively differently.  I 
think we can agree, since you and I have sat in such sessions, that much 
of the work of the IETF gets done OUTSIDE formal meetings, for that 
matter.  But more to your point, nothing I wrote keeps such people (or 
anyone else) from showing up.

>> when people present new drafts.  New drafts shouldn't be presented
>>      
> at
>    
>> F2Fs, IMHO.
>>      
> I disagree.

And I agree with your last point, but let's come into the 21st century 
and perhaps make use of such lovely services as YouTube (that one's not 
blocked in China, is it? (he says, ducking)).  We need ways to scale the 
organization, and to make the most of bringing between one and two 
thousand people together.  Having someone drone on and on and on and on 
(which has happened) in a presentation that could have simply been a VoD 
is not why I want to sit 22 hours on a plane, nevermind scheduling 
limitations.

> product managers, or to convince the company to implement the emerging

Fair enough, but why does this have to happen in person?  In fact, 
aren't these sorts of presentations PERFECT for either a VoD *or* if you 
want to answer questions, a WebEx or Adobe session?  That way those 
product managers and other engineers can watch the preso themselves.

> presentations will cause people to question existing assumptions.

It'd be a fair point if they had no avenue to present.

> about reducing requested time, and ask the chairs what the F2F is

Have you been asked such a question?  You're a working group chair.

> Effectiveness analysis belongs in the hands of the chairs and ADs.

Ok, you've taken my analogy farther than I would have.

Eliot

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:41:50 -0400

> Have you been asked such a question?  You're a working group chair.

Yes. The OPS ADs have teleconferences with their chairs prior to each
IETF meeting and ask just those sorts of questions.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:51:44 -0400

--On Friday, October 09, 2009 20:20 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Given the scheduling difficulties, I don't see any reasonable
>> alternative to having Friday be a regular day of IETF
>> meetings (at least through noon or 3pm). Each of us needs to
>> schedule our travel accordingly. I don't like losing parts of
>> two consecutive weekends any more than other people do, but
>> it seems to be the best option.
>> 
>> I have wondered whether we should intentionally schedule the
>> most popular and/or best attended working groups on Friday,
>> so that people will get the point that it is a regular day of
>> the IETF.
> 
> I'm not arguing with the consensus that we should have WGs
> meet on Friday, but maybe it would be appropriate to share the
> pain a bit. If WGs are meeting on Friday more than every 5
> IETFs or so, that seems a bit unfair.
>...

However it is done, I think some rotation is in order so that no
WG is consistently forced to meet on Friday and no WG or area
gets to completely avoid it meeting after meeting.  I don't
think we should be punitive about it but, if it is a regular day
(or regular 3/4 day), then we should  treat and schedule it as
one.

Unlike others, I do see alternatives to having sessions on
Friday, or past 11:30 on Friday, but the IESG has concluded that
the community prefers Friday meetings to the possibly-brutal
decisions that would be necessary to avoid it, so let's take
that decision seriously rather than treating Friday as something
people get to avoid.

    john

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:51:04 -0400

A
>(or regular 3/4 day), then we should  treat and schedule it as

I think FCFS is a good model, but then I have a track record of 
getting the PKIX request in within a few hours of the solicitation of 
slot requests :-).

Steve

---

From: Alexa Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:32:26 -0700

David,

We do not use conflict resolution software to create the agenda;  
currently the process is quite manual. We are developing a new  
scheduling tool but it will not be ready for quite some time. From  
what I understand, in the past there was an attempt to ask people  
which WG sessions they wanted to attend but it seems that people had  
the tendency to indicate they planned to attend far more sessions than  
was realistic, which meant the information received was not  
particularly helpful to the Secretariat.

However, we could probably rewrite the registration system to include  
this feature and limit the number of selections an individual can  
make.  Prioritization would also be helpful. I like this idea and will  
see how we can implement it -- of course, this will also take some time.

And while you probably know all of this since you are WG chair, here a  
quick overview of how the scheduling process currently works. At the  
conclusion of each meeting we use the information from the blue sheets  
to get a rough estimate of how many people attended each session. We  
share this information with WG chairs when we open scheduling for the  
next meeting, and it helps us to determine what size meeting room they  
will need. We ask WG chairs to indicate any unique requests (e.g. to  
avoid a particular day because a presenter isn't available), how much  
time they will need for their sessions and which groups they cannot /  
should not conflict with -- and we ask that these conflicts be ranked  
as 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority.  A list of twenty other WGs to avoid is  
not uncommon. This information is used to develop the draft agenda,  
which is then reviewed and edited until it is considered "final".

Alexa

>>> rather than letting some people or WGs opt-out.

-----------
Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA  94538
Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001
Email: [email-masked]

Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>