Re: [Ideas] IDEAS BoF at IETF 99

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 6/7/17, 5:46 PM, "Ideas on behalf of Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear IDEAS list:

First of all, I want to thank the proponents and everyone who participated in last week’s BOF in Prague.  Special thanks to the BOF Chairs!

> The IAB/IESG held our BoF Coordination Call today, and it was decided
> to go forward with an IDEAS BoF at IETF 99.  Congratulations!
>
> There are however some concerns that we need you (proponents/
> participants/authors) to address at the BoF.  Based on that, we should
> ideally be able to take some action… From my point of view, the success
> of the BoF should be measured by whether we have the necessary
> information to make the correct decision.

The consensus among the Chairs and the IESG/IAB is that the materials presented at the BOF resulted in the feeling that there is something to be done here, but that “something” is not clear.  In part, this impression comes from the wide-ranging discussion – in part from the fact that most of the technical discussions have so far not been held on the list.  To paraphrase one of the participants: “I know what I want, and I kind of know what others want”…

What are the next steps?  I would like to see more discussions and participation on the list, to reflect the interest in the room – some of that is starting to happen already.

I don’t think that this effort would necessarily benefit from the BOF result being “let’s try it again next time”.  Alternatively, I am willing to sponsor a focused WG proposal [*] to define a framework that reflects consensus on what is expected from the mapping system, the questions around identity persistence, privacy, etc.  I note that the BOF proposal [1] included precisely a framework as milestones…

===
Milestones
Dec 2017 Adopt WG draft for the Identity Services framework
May 2018 WGLC for the Identity Services framework
August 2018 Send Identity Services framework draft to the IESG
===

…but the current proposed charter [2] does not reflect that.

If the group has the interest to follow this focused path, please start the discussion around an updated proposed charter.  If we settle on the text quickly, we should be able to take a proposal through the process (long) before the next IETF.  I would hope for an aggressive timeline in completing that piece of work.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


[*] Obviously, the normal approval process would be followed: IESG/IAB/community review, etc.
[1] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/
[2] https://github.com/IETF-IDEAS/Charter-Proposal