Re: [arch-d] The IAB Liaison Oversight program - feedback on closing

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Deb,

I have no strong form about the organizational structure, but some 
high level thoughts:

It would be great if there was more outreach to the IETF community about
liaisons, querying what they like, dislike, etc. pp.

Topic 1: I for once felt that 2019/2020 saw (sorry to say) despicable IETF
liaison management with specifically one other SDO, and beside having been
appalled by that i wouldn't even know where in the IETF one could bring
up concerns about that in a more focussed fashion (with followups)
than blathering into the ether ([e-mail]).

Topic 2: Right now i am getting reminded of at least two interesting touch
points with possible IEEE work where purely being able to find folks at IEEE
to discuss with would help. One being L2/ethertype/802.1x related (ANIMA),
the other one being the idea of cross-protocol (ethernet/ip/mpls) reuseable 
services headers. Or to put it in your terms: Imagine TSN would have
put all its services parameters into a header we could have simply reused
as an extension header also to IP/MPLS. How much time you could have spent
on the beach as opposed in all those cumbersome DetNet meetings where we
had to reinvent and adopt a lot of that TSN work. (Btw: the joint 
DetNet/TSN in Bangkok was the best cross-SDO collab i've ever seen. I wish
in times of using more virtual meetings, we could do more of that and not
wait for hotel booking for IEEE/IETF to collide again).

Cheers
    Toerless


On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0000, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [no-hats]
>  
> While the IAB can open/close programs per their discretion without community input, I want the community to know that, as incoming IAB member, I had raised concerns on closing this program. IETF's liaison relationships to other SDOs has always been an important issue to me, as a working group chair of groups working with ITU, Routing AD, and MPLS liaison.
>  
> Basically, I didn't understand why the approach on this program was to close it without first considering rechartering. The rationale for closing this program, i.e., no need for "recycling a dormant program", is identical to the IANA program ("sleepy program"), though for that program the conclusion was to update the charter and ask the community for feedback.
>  
> And so my bigger concern - the IAB says it is "unclear" on the need for a liaison oversight program. For those of us involved in other SDOs, IETF's current "whac-a-mole[*]" process of involving experts on "as-needed basis" is very concerning.  This program was formed to "provide strategic direction" so as to relieve our liaison managers of being in conflict with RFC4691:
> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2011-2/iab-response-to-some-iesg-thoughts-on-liaisons/
> 
> One of the four questions on the 2021 IAB Questionnaire was "how can the value of the IETF to internal and broader technical community be improved". To me, that question from the community, was affirming the importance to be [more] proactive in our liaison strategy to SDOs/forums/open source efforts. Not to close the responsible program with no new proposal.
> 
> Sigh, as new IAB member, I'll tackle drafting a "clear charter" with "purposeful membership" program on liaison oversight, and hopefully be able to convince my IAB colleagues. Hopefully SOON [**] in the IAB decision timeline.
>  
> 2nd (longer) Sigh,
> Deborah
> (countdown - 2 weeks!)
> [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole
> [**] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-farrel-soon-06.txt
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Architecture-discuss <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:54 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: IAB IAB <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [arch-d] The IAB Liaison Oversight program
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As per our charter, '[t]he IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the Internet Society in technical liaison relationships with other organizations concerned with standards and other technical and organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet'[1]. That representation is carried out by liaison managers, who are selected from the community by the IAB. Liaison managers are overseen by individual members of the IAB who act as shepherds (see also [2]).
> 
> Firstly, I would like to note that this message is not intended to propose any changes to the liaison manager/shepherd system at this time, as the IAB believes that this representation works well.
> 
> In parallel to the liaison manager/shepherd system, the IAB is operating the Liaison Oversight program (see [3]). This program has been dormant for several years, and does not have a clear role to play in liaison management as of today. The program supported the IAB in developing the framework for liaison relationships and setting the requirements for the related IT systems but these activities were completed some time ago. 
> 
> As part of the IAB effort to restructure its programs, the IAB is in the process of reviewing all open programs. Given the currently unclear function and role of the IAB Oversight program, the IAB has decided to conclude the program. Again, this will not impact the liaison management as performed today.
> 
> The IAB sees liaison management as an important part of its role and has taken on responsibilities like periodically reviewing liaison relationships itself, rather than delegating that responsibility to a program. Further, the IAB serves as a contact point to the community and frequently reaches out to members of the community in order to request support for the IAB and the IETF community in its liaison activities on an as-needed basis, depending on the liaison relationship and technology in question. This process has been working well and the IAB is working on further improving it to make it more clear and transparent to the community as well as improving continuity of knowledge and knowledge transfer between the IAB and a broad range of community experts.
> 
> If during the on-going review of the liaison management process the IAB may find it necessary to have one or more programs for liaison management, e.g. to support maintenance of very active liaison relationships or to improve a specific parts of the liaison management process, the new IAB program structure has been set up to make to easy and uncomplicated to open and close programs/support groups as needed. Inline with that, the IAB believes it is the better option to create new groups with clear charters and purposeful membership, rather than potentially recycling a dormant program.
> 
> We thank the program members for their service.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mirja
> On behalf on the IAB
> 
> 
> [1] RFC2850 s 2(f)
> [2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9xnFihmAQ$ 
> [3] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iab-liaison-coordination-program/__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9xK0bE_LM$ 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9x7IQ6lHI$ 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

-- 
---
[e-mail]