Re: [arch-d] IAB report to the community for IETF-109

[IAB Chair <[e-mail]>]

Dear S. Moonesamy,

Please see replies to your questions below.

> On 15. Nov 2020, at 15:12, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Internet Architecture Board,
> At 10:34 AM 13-11-2020, IAB Chair wrote:
>> IAB Programs
>> ——
>> ”
>> The IAB has been working on refactoring its programs. In analysing the current IAB programs, the IAB identified two kinds of programs which are quite different in their needs and goals. Therefore, the new structure proposes to separate today's IAB programs into Technical Programs and Administrative Support Groups. The aim of this effort is to increase transparency, visibility, and openness of the architectural work done by the IAB. A request for feedback about this reorganization has been sent to the [e-mail] list, see
> 
> The report for the announcement is for July.  Is this a mistake?

Sorry for the confusion again and also my late response. I believe that has been clarified in the mean time.

> 
> The Administrative Support Group is akin to a group of 10 persons providing assistance to a committee comprising the 13 persons.  That is different to the (IETF) directorates.  Using the IANA as an example, and based on what was reported, there wasn't anything significant from March to July.  I don't remember seeing any discussion of an appointment this year.  What does the IAB require assistance with?

As you can see in the current report there was also not any mentioning of these groups. This is because these groups are often/usually rather low activity, at least without specific events that needs reporting, and mainly provide specific expertise to the IAB when needed. However, we receive certain reports, also from IANA, on a regular basis which can be found in the minutes of the respective next IAB call.

> 
> It is commendable that IAB/IAB programs might wish to fix dysfunctions within areas of IETF activity by doing the work.  However, the role of the "Architecture" in "IAB" is for long range planning and coordination.  The intent of Section 2.1 (RFC2850) is that the IAB is not the group responsible for doing the actual work or else that would not be labelled as "oversight".

Responsibilities as described in section 2.1 are addressed, among other things like e.g. workshops as also mention in that section, by Technical Programs.

As such the intention of Technical program is to 
"make sure that [...] issues
   are brought to the attention of the group(s) that are in a position
   to address them” 
as also described in that section.

And that's also what we described in the text provided about Technical Programs:

"The primary goal of a Technical Program should be to raise awareness of an issue or question relating to the Internet architecture, or to consider whether there is a question to be answered in a particular area.

Technical Programs help the IAB to frame questions. They do not directly work to develop protocols, requirements, or use cases for new protocols, systems, or frameworks. If a Technical Program concludes that engineering or standards are required, a BoF should be considered to transition the work to the IETF.”

> 
> The concept of "program" creates opaque accountability.  Has the IAB considered that?

There has been already some discussion about this point. However, part of the restructuring is also to clarify these things. I think this discussion applies rather to Administrative Support Groups and as I noted in my mail to the [e-mail] list:

"Administrative Support Groups are the current technical plenary program, the IANA program, and the liaison program. Please note that the IAB is also in the progress of reviewing these activities.”

> 
> I did not find anything in the report pertaining to the IAB representing the interests of the IETF.  Is there an explanation for that omission?

I'm not sure what you would be expecting on this point as the report is summarising activities since the last IETF meeting.

Mirja


> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy