Re: [6gip] Side Meeting Closing Notes

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

David,


Le 11/03/2021 à 11:32, David Lake a écrit :
[...]
> I restate - IMHO there is no IETF or IRTF work in "6G" in the 
> short/medium term

It depends on what we mean by '6G' more precisely.

I wouldnt disqualify that IETF and IRTF work on 6G.  Comparing it to
QIRG (an RG at IETF), I think 6G might happen well before a Quantum
Internet happens, yet there is an RG for this latter.

If 3GPP does not work on 6G at this time, would that be reason enough to
stop others from grouping and working on what they think to be '6G'?

Is 6G a Copyright or a Trademark of 3GPP?

> but there ARE interesting elements of Future Networking which this 
> community in conjunction with our friends and colleagues in ITU, 
> ETSI, ATIS, 3GPP, IEEE, academia et al. should be working on.

I agree also on this term 'Future Networking'.

But I will not oppose on the use of the term '6G' either.

I know that in the recent past someone proposed to work on something
termed 'IPv10'.  Technically, the proposal was qualified as unreasonable
by many at IETF, and the end result of that was something exceptional -
forced retiring text from an I-D.  It was a ban.  A limitation in a
freedom of speech if I can say so.

I know that DVD wrote a secret encryption algorithm that was later
reverse engineered, publicized and banned by rights owners.  Some people
printed it on t-shirts, IIRC, but it is still somehow illegal.  People
moved on to other schemes.

But with 6G things are different.  One could ban the '6G' term at IETF
now, but one is almost sure that term would come up again maybe later.

> Personally, I am unclear which branch of the ISOC-family could be 
> chartered with this kind of work and guidance would be appreciated.

I think ISOC has branches in countries (chapters) but they dont develop
technical work.  They do promote the technologies developped at IETF.
ISOC does fund a large part of IETF operations.

There is IETF, IRTF and IAB.

At this time, for my part, I would think there are possibilities to work
on something related to 6G in each of these three bodies.

Some times one might think that IETF might not work on things qualified
as 'buzzwords'.  E.g. IETF does not have WGs with names containing
'Cloud' or 'AI'; until recently it was so about 'IoT' too (no WG with
'IoT' in the name) but recently there is this 'iotops' WG.  This might
constitute an indicator that a '6Gops' might qualify as a potential name
of a WG, even though, of course, the detail mechanism or requirement
should be agreed by a group of people at IETF, including IESG
representatives, before dreaming about it.

Then there are the SDOs: ITU-R, ITU-T, ETSI, 3GPP, IEEE.  You also said
'ATIS' that I dont know what it means.  IETF has persons that are
'liaisons' to these SDOs.  But some of them no: e.g. ITU-R and ATIS.
The list of liaisons is at https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/
Maybe IETF could develop a separate liaison to each of these not-yet
liaised SDOs, on the topic of '6G'.

> I was the person who said we needed to reset this group.

YEs yes, thanks.

While resetting, I was wondering whether we could get the most recent
version of the slides presented?

And then, or maybe later, maybe this '6GIP' name is not really about the
relationship between '6G' and 'IP', like I was trying to describe in my
earlier emails.  The only activity about addressing (other than me)
seemed to come from only one other person, so I guess that is not enough.

At that point, maybe, a name change in the name of the list could be
part of this reset too... but too many name changes before even
chartering is probably too much work.

Alex

> 
> We do.
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: 6gip <[e-mail]> On 
> Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: 11 March 2021 09:10 To: 
> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [6gip] Side Meeting Closing Notes
> 
> 
> 
> Le 11/03/2021 à 09:50, Lars Eggert a écrit :
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 2021-3-10, at 1:46, David Lake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> We cannot continue like this.  I'm afraid for me the tone of the
>>>  conversation and the quality of the chairmanship was simply not
>>>  acceptable.
>> 
>> I would like so strongly second this. In another email on this 
>> thread, I already pointed to the IETF Note Well 
>> (https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
.ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fnote-well%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C7c32e0a7ae7c44319c5108d8e46d6ffd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637510505969958157%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=%2F3UBcJHPOhE%2BRdoIGHrhq89Zwpi9EJ0CyYjbIWN%2FMME%3D&amp;reserved=0)
and explained that it applies to side meetings. It (also) says:
>> 
>> . As a participant or attendee, you agree to work respectfully with
>> other participants (...)
> 
> Inherently, I think that what appeared as disrespect was not really 
> disrespect.
> 
> I think that the person was on a very hurry to push eveyrone to
> focus on the discussion slide (the 6G topics) rather than diverging
> on other topics.  I think this is normal in early topic meetings to
> try to make progress.
> 
> Also, it is true, that there was an apparent non-listening, or non 
> understanding, from the organizer.  But that has multiple causes 
> which are not his fault: - the time was very short and the organizer 
> had to react quickly. - the way in which webex works (only one video 
> displayed, lack of queueing and a mike attribution strategy), made 
> participants think (I suspect) that they should reply to the 
> organizer, whereas the organizer assumed that there should be 
> discussion between participants, not between participants and 
> organizer.
> 
> Also, it is true, that the end result of this appeared to be very
> bad to contributors.  That situation is really not desirable.
> 
>> Several of us pointed out during the meeting that the way in which 
>> a convener of the side meeting repeatedly talked over Marie-Jose 
>> Montpetit when she tried to make a contribution was simply 
>> unacceptable, even more so because male participants were not 
>> subjected to the same behavior.
> 
> But, that amounts to sexism.  If that is the same feeling from 
> several people, then I think it should be addressed and not let go, 
> action taken.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> If I see other instances of such disrespectful behavior, I will 
>> work towards getting this mailing list closed, and will discourage 
>> IETF participants from attending any future side meetings.
>> 
>> Lars Eggert IETF Chair
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 6gip mailing list [e-mail] 
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C7c32e0a7ae7c44319c5108d8e46d6ffd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637510505969958157%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=idIxgn1PB7vEInaXeaXwHp81s9SdT8mAwEg527dYjSU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>