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

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot (and everyone that responded - thanks),

Eliot - you provided a great, very succinct, description of why having a strategy is critical for us. Much better than my words. And as you say, not just with respect to “SDOs”, but also informal relationships. I totally agree with you and Melinda, we need to “Think Big”. This is very different from liaison management of our managers on the front-lines (which is also critical).

Guntur – thanks - your paper description is right-on “strategic spatial planning in conditions of indeterminacy or uncertainty”. We’ll use that in our program description.

Thanks all,
(to-be-continued)
Deborah


From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:16 AM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; IAB IAB <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] The IAB Liaison Oversight program - feedback on closing

Hi,

Thanks, Deborah and other board members for the opportunity to discuss the program.  As you can see from the comments on this list and elsewhere, you and the rest of the IAB will have my assistance as long as you wish it.

There really is a succinct question that the IAB has before it in this context:


  *   How is the Internet architecture both best advanced and best protected through the board’s relationship with others?

You might ask, “Who are these ‘others’ ”?  We typically think in terms of liaison relationships, but there are many informal relationships as well that are useful to maintain.  Having institutional knowledge of that component is something that is very difficult to track, because it will run stale.  Quite simply, people retire.

You might ask, “What does it mean to advance or protect the Internet architecture?”  That is for you as a board member to decide.  Where the liaison program came in was as a means of intelligence and influence to indicate when a challenge existed, and how to deal with it.  We did, I think, a relatively good job of that for quite some time.

Where I think we never did a particularly good job was on outreach to others when we wanted to let them know how the architecture was evolving.  And evolve it has.  IAB statements end up on a web site that few people see.  But do they get liaised or shared in perhaps more influential ways?  My experience has been that this has been inconsistent, at best.  What would be the reaction if they were, and should the IAB care? Many of us have some context to help you and your colleagues answer these and other questions.

It’s true that all of this was not well documented in the program charter.  That’s perhaps more my fault than anyone’s, and for that I apologize.  Those who followed Ralph and me might have better understood the program’s value.

It could also be that the program is somewhat misnomered, but this is based on the language in RFC 2850.  That document will need a dust off, as Brian and JCK have pointed out in another context.  In this sense, as you consider what to do next, my suggestion is to Think Big.  I agree with Melinda that it is better to figure out where one is going before one starts driving, but you always have the opportunity to establish a new destination and route.

Eliot

On 23 Feb 2021, at 23:03, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:54 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: IAB IAB <[e-mail]<mailto:[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$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9xnFihmAQ$>
[3] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iab-liaison-coordination-program/__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9xK0bE_LM$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iab.org/activities/programs/iab-liaison-coordination-program/__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9xK0bE_LM$>


_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9x7IQ6lHI$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss__;!!BhdT!zvZhVZdKjTglhGiKkGwKaQOHI2hnkIzAee1ZtSK_SjFw_VMFpb4eIq9x7IQ6lHI$>

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss