Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9307 <draft-iab-aid-workshop-01> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please review the guidance for IAB documents
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

a) Consensus is set to “true” in the XML and the datatracker, but 
the document is missing the “IAB Members at the Time of Approval” section. 
Please let us know if we may add this section and include the names appearing
at <https://www.iab.org/about/iab-members/> (excluding ex-officio members). 

b) We will remove each author’s affiliation unless we hear objection. 

c) We will move “Workshop Participants” section to be an appendix as suggested
at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt>. Should the “Program 
Committee” section be treated the same?

-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Niels, you previously indicated you prefer that your last 
name be capitalized in footers as "Ten Oever" but appear as "ten Oever" 
wherever preceded by your first name or initial (i.e., document header, 
Authors' Addresses) (e.g., RFC 8280).  We are unable to follow this guidance 
in the current XML.  Note that the PDF is the only paginated form.  It shows 
"ten Oever, et al." in the page footers.
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear 
in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Does 
"including of Internet protocols..." refer to the standardization activities?  
What does "its institutions" mean? 

Original:
   The IETF, as an international Standards Developing Organization
   (SDO), hosts a diverse set of data including on the organization's
   history, development, and current standardization activities,
   including of Internet protocols and its institutions.

Perhaps:
   The IETF, as an international Standards Developing Organization
   (SDO), hosts a diverse set of data that includes the organization's
   history, development, and current standardization activities, which 
   includes Internet protocols and its institutions.
--> 


5) <!-- [rfced] We have expanded ICT as "information and communication 
technologies".  Please let us know if any corrections are needed.

Current:
   A large
   portion of this data is publicly available, yet it is underutilized
   as a tool to inform the work in the IETF or the broader
   research community focused on topics like Internet governance and
   trends in information and communication technologies (ICT) standard-
   setting.
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1 includes several links to external documents. 
For a clearer reference section, may we specify these in an "Informative
References" section along with a list of position papers. This would be
similar to RFC 8980 and RFC 9075. 
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] "related to gender questions" is awkward here.  Perhaps this 
could be rephrased as "gender-related information"?  Alternatively, perhaps 
"responses to gender-related questions" would work.  

Original:
   These projects could be used to add
   additional insights to the existing IETF statistics
   (https://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats.html) page and the datatracker
   statistics (https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/), e.g., related to
   gender questions, however, privacy issues andd implication of making
   such data publicly available were discussed as well.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Are you still encouraging discussion to take place on 
[e-mail], or should this be changed to past tense?  
Should a qualifier be added to this sentence, for example, questions 
or discussion about the datatracker and possible enhancements may 
be sent to...? 

Original:
   Questions or any
   discussion can be issued to [e-mail].
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] We had trouble parsing this sentence. Please review 
and let us know how we may clarify.

Original:
   To assess these question it
   has ben discussed to investigate participant's affiliations including
   "indirect" affiliation e.g. by funding and changes in affiliation as
   well as the nessecarity to model company characteristics or
   stakeholder groups.

Perhaps:
   To assess these questions, investigating participant affiliations, 
   including "indirect" affiliations (e.g., by tracking funding and 
   changes in affiliation) was discussed.  The need to model company 
   characteristics or stakeholder groups was also discussed.  
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] Would "highlighted" or "emphasized" be more clear 
than "stressed" here? 

Original:
   The human element of the community and diversity was stressed, in
   order to understand the IETF community's diversity it is important to
   talk to people (beyond text analysis) and in order to ensure
   inclusivity individual participants must make an effort to, as one
   participant recounted, tell them their participation is valuable.

Current:
   The human element of the community and diversity was stressed.  In
   order to understand the IETF community's diversity, it is important
   to talk to people (beyond text analysis). ... 
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] This document seems to use "draft" generically and to 
refer to Internet-Drafts in some places.  Please review and consider 
whether the text should refer specifically to Internet-Drafts in some 
places for clarity. 
-->


12) <!-- [rfced] Have these questions already been answered or does 
analysis need to be completed to identify the answers? 

Original:
   Answers to these questions come from analysis of IETF emails, RFCs
   and Internet-Drafts, meeting minutes, recordings, Github data, and
   external data such as surveys, etc.

Perhaps: 
   Analysis of data such as IETF emails, RFCs and Internet-Drafts, 
   meeting minutes, recordings, Github data, and external data (e.g., surveys) 
   may help answer these questions. 
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] Note that we changed "CO2 emissions" to "carbon emissions" 
here to match use in the rest of the paragraph.  Please let us know if 
corrections are needed. 

Original (the whole paragraph is provided for context):
   Discussion started by considering how sustainable are IETF meetings,
   focussing on how much CO2 emissions are IETF meetings responsible for
   and how can we make the IETF more sustainable.  Analysis looked at
   the home locations of participants, meeting locations, and carbon
   footprint of air travel and remote attendance, to estimate the carbon
   costs of an IETF meeting.  Initial results suggest that the costs of
   holding multiple in-person IETF meetings per year are likely
   unsustainable in terms of carbon emission, although the analysis is
   ongoing.
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] This text was difficult to follow.  Please consider 
our suggested text and and let us know if it captures your intended meaning: 

Original:
   Discussion also considered to what extent are climate impacts
   considered in the development and standardization of Internet
   protocols?  It reviewed the text of RFCs and active working group
   drafts, looking for relevant keywords to highlight the extent to
   which climate change, energy efficiency, and related topics are
   considered in the design of Internet protocols, to show the limited
   extent to which these topics have been considered.  Ongoing work is
   considering meeting minutes and mail archives, to get a fuller
   picture, but initial results show only limited consideration of these
   important issues.

Current:
   The extent to which climate impacts are
   considered during the development and standardization of Internet
   protocols was discussed.  RFCs and Internet-Drafts of active working 
   groups were reviewed for relevant keywords to highlight the extent to
   which climate change, energy efficiency, and related topics were
   considered in the design of Internet protocols.  This review revealed 
   the limited extent to which these topics have been considered.  There 
   is ongoing work to get a fuller picture by reviewing meeting minutes 
   and mail archives as well, but initial results show only limited 
   consideration of these important issues.
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful for readers to include a reference 
for the IETF gather.town area? 

Original:
   All groups had their own work space and
   could use their own communication methods and channels, or use IETF's
   gather.town.
-->


16) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that asking participants to "submit groups" 
is correct, as this reads "asking participants to submit groups to facilitate 
the formation of groups".  Perhaps "groups" could be ommitted? 

Original: 
   Future workshops that choose to integrate a hackathon could consider
   to ask participants to submit groups, issues, and questions
   beforehand (potentially as part of the positions paper or the sign-up
   process) to facilitate the formation of groups.
-->


17) <!-- [rfced] Sections 4.1 - 4.5: While possibly a bit redundant, it may be 
helpful to the reader to include text to introduce the position papers and 
subject matter.  Please provide text if you would like to make updates. 
-->


18) <!-- [rfced] Concerning the titles of the two position papers discussed below, please consider whether any updates are desired.  

a) Don Le's paper originally was named "Position Paper" in the reference.
We have updated this to “Article 19” to match what we see at the URL provided.  
However, perhaps "Analysing IETF Data Position Paper [ARTICLE 19]" as shown in 
the page info would be more informative?  

Original: 
   Don Le Position Paper (https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
   uploads/2021/11/Le.pdf)


b) Mark McFadden's paper is named "Position Paper" in the reference and the
paper itself has no title.  Perhaps we can use the title provided via 
page info: IAB Workshop Proposal?  Alternatively, perhaps "A position paper by Mark McFadden" would work? 

Original: 
   Mark McFadden Position Paper (https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
   uploads/2021/11/McFadden.pdf)
-->


19) <!-- [rfced] Note that the Acknowledgements section was updated 
so that two paragraphs about support for Niels ten Oever appear 
closer together.  
-->


20) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.  Note that our script did not 
flag any words or phrases of concern. -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Aug 22, 2022, at 11:57 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/08/22

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9307.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9307

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9307 (draft-iab-aid-workshop-01)

Title            : Report from the IAB Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID), 2021
Author(s)        : N. Oever, C. Cath, M. Kühlewind, C. Perkins
WG Chair(s)      : 
Area Director(s) :