Re: [arch-d] draft-iab-m-ten-workshop

[Arnaud Taddei <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Wes, so, am back from what were supposed to be holidays as you noticed.

Makes all sense to me below. I don’t know if I will be in a position to contribute something to Prague given the (yiiik) work load ahead of me, but will do my best.

From: Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2023 at 22:32
To: Arnaud Taddei <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] draft-iab-m-ten-workshop
Arnaud Taddei <arnaud.taddei=[e-mail]> writes:

Hi Arnaud,

> To start with I don’t know what is it that I am doing wrong that I
> don’t see any notification of such reports being published, though I
> thought I put myself on all the right mailing lists.

One of the important ones is architecture-discuss, which is where many
discussions occur about IAB (and other) related efforts, including
workshops:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1692649962000000&usg=AOvVaw1P3-8NlroxR4a17yX3UwEd

> I cannot judge if it represents what had been expressed or if more
> non-neutral interpretation were added as I was not there.

As I responded to Elliot, we did add some clarification at the top of
the document about what the contents of the workshop report contains.

> I remember I arrived too late for participation in this workshop but
> really regret not being able to attend.

I certainly regret having your voice in the room, and hope that
if/when/etc future discussions occur you'll be able to add your voice to
the dialog.  It is a difficult problem space and determining the right
balance between operations and privacy is far from solved, as the
viewpoints are still very divergent.

> I think a few opportunities were missed and this is mostly because the
> representativity of who should have been in this workshop was
> unbalanced.

[entirely IMHO, but I believe many agree with me]: the IETF has always
struggled to find the right balance of protocol design experts vs the
operators that will hopefully deploy the results in the future.  There
have been many cases where the IETF has tried to attract operators to WG
and Area meetings (opsarea being one, for example) and the success of
those approaches have come in waves.  It's a concerning challenge
precisely because of some of the items discussed in the workshop, such
as operator overload, as well as discussed in more recent threads within
the IETF, such as travel funding being more difficult to come by.

I'll end with one final point: as I said in the note to Eliot, the
purpose of an IAB workshop is to *start* a discussion and we would like
nothing more than follow-on work to continue after the workshop is
over.  So, please do consider publishing drafts/etc and other work that
will further the discussion!  As I said, it's not an easy problem and
certainly we're far from done discussing it and to continue we need more
ideas and potential directions well documented.

--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.