Subject: pre-RIPE multiple IETF wg interim meetings

From: "Murphy, Sandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:36:51 +0000

SIDR is considering an interim meeting scheduled for pre/post RIPE in September, on the grounds that multiple wgs were considering interim meetings around the RIPE meeting.

The RIPE community is important to the SIDR work, so that made sense.

I see email traffic in the last few weeks on v6ops to consider a RIPE tethered interim.

Are there other wgs are considering interim meetings around RIPE?

Does anyone have a view as to whether the IETF would be willing to support such a gathering of interims?  (I.e., do the wgs who want to do this need to find their own logistics?  Individually or together?)

--Sandy, sidr co-chair

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:39:57 -0600

On 5/31/12 11:36 AM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
> SIDR is considering an interim meeting scheduled for pre/post RIPE in
> September, on the grounds that multiple wgs were considering interim
> meetings around the RIPE meeting.
> 
> Does anyone have a view as to whether the IETF would be willing to
> support such a gathering of interims?  (I.e., do the wgs who want to
> do this need to find their own logistics?  Individually or
> together?)

Talk with your Area Director. When I was on the IESG earlier this year,
we had active discussions about clustered interim meetings close in time
and space to events like RIPE. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:00:20 -0400

> Are there other wgs are considering interim meetings around RIPE?

I believe that OpSec is considering an interim the collocated with RIPE…

W

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:43:52 -0400

> Does anyone have a view as to whether the IETF would be willing to support such a gathering of interims?  (I.e., do the wgs who want to do this need to find their own logistics?  Individually or to…

Yes, the IETF is going to support a Large Interim Meeting in Amsterdam.  The tentative dates are 29 and 30 September.
We are hoping to use the same facility.  You will soon get guidance regarding the process of making known your interest in participating at the LIM.

Ray

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:23:51 -0700

> We are hoping to use the same facility.  You will soon get guidance regarding the process of making known your interest in participating at the LIM.

Well, yes. Russ has been interested in clustering interims; I *think* he is considering moving in the direction of replacing/augmenting the current schedule with smaller meetings of busy working groups. v6ops has been under a ddos of high rate low value drafts, has tried several approaches to dealing with it without the appearance of bias or favoritism, and has been repeatedly asked whether it would be a candidate for such additional meetings.

The comment we have gotten from the working group is that work will expand to fill the available capacity; they would prefer to restrict proposed work rather than increase meeting count. That said, if a meeting occurs on 29 September, we have tentative agreement from some of our members to attend, and I am currently planning other events around RIPE-65 on the assumption we will go there.

The sunset4 WG, assuming it comes into being, is ostensibly targeted at offloading work that comes to v6ops. However, as currently chartered, it requires a recharter from the IESG to do anything beyond occupy schedule space - or so its chairs tell me. Hence, I can't actually send proposed work to it. It's another meeting to spend time in, but it's not clear that it adds value.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:51:59 -0500

I personally have a concern with IETF sponsoring these large interim
meetings. The past model has been that these are sponsored by the
individuals' companies/sponsors as these are typically the folks that have
a vested interest in getting the work done in a timely manner.  I don't
recall any community discussion of this proposal.  I would think IETF funds
would be better allocated to the main IETF meetings when there is not a
sponsor and the entire community benefits.

In the RAI area, we have arranged an interim meeting that starts in a weeks
time that is intended to optimize the participation for folks involved in
two WGs and to encourage cross pollination as there will be a fair amount
of overlap in the solution space.  There will also be a related W3C meeting
in this block of meetings.  It was a challenge to organize this to optimize
participation for all the groups, as we ended up with a weekend between the
two meetings.  However, we do have a sponsor and while the location isn't
optimal (it's not in the city center) and getting hotel rooms was a
challenge as the meeting happened to be scheduled starting the day after a
major holiday Sweden, everyone seemed to manage their arrangements without
needing support from the secretariat,etc.  I think the burden was
rightfully placed on the individuals as well as their
corporations/sponsors.

Personally, I wonder if adding that burden to the secretariat would be a
good thing.  As a WG chair, it is somewhat of a challenge to manage prep
for the upcoming IETF meetings (with deadlines looming for the WGs) while
prepping for an interim meeting.  Recently, the secretariat has setup the
materials manager for the proceedings. which is a nice convenience, but I
don't see it a necessity to get them involved in planning interim meetings.

Although, reading this, it seems the suggestion is to evolve to this
smaller cluster of meetings model - i.e., the "augment/replace" suggestion.
  I don't think that's a good thing.  In some rare cases where there isn't
a RAI meeting that is of interest to me, I find it informative to attend
other WG sessions - e.g., APP area or OPS area meetings.  Also, RAI for
example, has overlap with a lot of areas.  So, we would lose some of the
expertise that can be helpful in getting our work progressed.  For example,
sitting down with a SEC AD to work through their list of discusses.
 Unless, of course the leadership must attend all these meeting clusters.
However, that would add to their burden and there is always discussion as
to how to reduce the overall burden.

I personally think we would be heading down a very slippery slope if IETF
starts sponsoring the interim meetings and evolves to a clustering model
for meetings.

Mary.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> support such a gathering of interims?  (I.e., do the wgs who want to do
> this need to find their own logistics?  Individually or together?)
> >
> > Yes, the IETF is going to support a Large Interim Meeting in Amsterdam.
>  The tentative dates are 29 and 30 September.
> > We are hoping to use the same facility.  You will soon get guidance
> regarding the process of making known your interest in participating at the
> LIM.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Well, yes. Russ has been interested in clustering interims; I *think* he
> is considering moving in the direction of replacing/augmenting the current
> schedule with smaller meetings of busy working groups. v6ops has been under
> a ddos of high rate low value drafts, has tried several approaches to
> dealing with it without the appearance of bias or favoritism, and has been
> repeatedly asked whether it would be a candidate for such additional
> meetings.
>
> The comment we have gotten from the working group is that work will expand
> to fill the available capacity; they would prefer to restrict proposed work
> rather than increase meeting count. That said, if a meeting occurs on 29
> September, we have tentative agreement from some of our members to attend,
> and I am currently planning other events around RIPE-65 on the assumption
> we will go there.
>
> The sunset4 WG, assuming it comes into being, is ostensibly targeted at
> offloading work that comes to v6ops. However, as currently chartered, it
> requires a recharter from the IESG to do anything beyond occupy schedule
> space - or so its chairs tell me. Hence, I can't actually send proposed
> work to it. It's another meeting to spend time in, but it's not clear that
> it adds value.
>
>
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:00:54 -0400

--On Thursday, May 31, 2012 15:43 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Does anyone have a view as to whether the IETF would be
>> willing to support such a gathering of interims?  (I.e., do
>> the wgs who want to do this need to find their own logistics?
>> Individually or together?)
> 
> Yes, the IETF is going to support a Large Interim Meeting in
> Amsterdam.  The tentative dates are 29 and 30 September. We
> are hoping to use the same facility.  You will soon get
> guidance regarding the process of making known your interest
> in participating at the LIM.

And, without taking a position as to whether it is a good idea
or not, here we go down the slippery slope toward either four
full IETF meetings a year or perhaps toward one or two full IETF
meetings and a few Interim Meeting clusters.

   john