Re: [arch-d] 2 suggestions from the IAB open meeting

One comment below [MB].

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 6:05 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
wrote:

> Hi Lixia,
>
> Thanks for bringing this to the list. Please see inline.
>
> > On 11. Mar 2021, at 17:04, Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to support the following 2 suggestions I heard from today’s
> open meeting
> >
> > 1/ setting up a separate mailing list for discussions on adm/liaison
> related issues.
> > This would leave arch-discuss just for technical arch issues as its name
> called.
>
> For any input regarding liaison management, please send an email directly
> to iab@iab.org at this point. As I said in the IAB open meeting, the IAB
> is currently in the process of discussing various aspects and we will reach
> out to the community again when we made some progress. Any input or
> feedback is of course very welcome at any time!
>
> For question directly on a specific liaison or handling of liaison
> statements, you can also use liaison-coordination@iab.org now.
>
> The IAB has been using the architecture-discuss list for announcements
> about e.g. workshops, documents, or program for a quiet while and that was
> in scope for the list already when the list was started. As you can see the
> load is not extremely high. We discussed the use of that list for these
> kind of announcements last year as well and concluded that this list is a
> good opportunity to reach the community. Also I would say most of the
> announcements, e.g. on workshop or document feedback calls have some
> technical aspects as well. I personally don’t really see the benefit of
> moving the few admin-only related announcement to a separate list (with the
> risk of not reaching the community) but I will discuss this with the rest
> of the IAB again!
>
[MB] As I said in that other thread while back, when I was IAB executive
director, I had the understanding that the list was for the community to
discuss technical architectural issues as Lixia stated.   Looking at the
archives, I'm not seeing that it was historically used for workshop
announcements.  And, I'm recalling that the architecture-discuss list was a
subset of the broader community.   I didn't know it existed until I was on
IAB.   Why can't you just post the announcements that you want to ensure
the community sees on the main IETF announcement list?  They've always been
posted there, anyways as I recall.   [/MB]

>
> >
> > 2/ looking into a workshop on internet centralization/decentralization.
>
> As I said in the IAB open meeting, the IAB discussed a possible workshop
> in this space multiple times. However, the general topic is very broad and
> a workshop to be successful and to eventually come to some conclusions/next
> steps usually needs to be more focused. As such, the IAB, e.g., held the
> DEDR workshop in 2019 where centralisation was one main focus, see
>
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8980.html#name-centralized-deployment-mode
>
> The IAB is still discussing aspects of centralisation and, as also
> mentioned in the plenary and the IAB open meeting, Jari is holding the pen
> on an update of his draft. For now I very much appreciate to continue the
> discussion on the architecture-discuss list. But I'm also sure this will be
> a topic again at the next IAB retreat and potentially the next IAB open
> meeting.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> >
> > I agree with the comments that extended discussions are needed on the
> topic, and see the workshop preparation could serve as a drive for focused
> discussions.
> >
> > If a workshop is to be planned, IAB might start with an open agenda and
> solicit inputs from the broader community, e.g. what topics (and
> sub-topics) to be consider for the agenda
> >
> > Lixia
> >
> > PS: I would also like to take opportunity to clarify one of my text
> comment at the IAB open meeting:
> > My comment is something like “protocol designs are what we do. The real
> question is what kinds of protocols we design”
> >
> > I saw a couple responses like “but IAB can be a lot more than that
> (protocol designs)” — of course.  My comment was only on the protocol
> design part.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>