Scaling the IETF (Re: Excessive use of interim meetings)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 17 February 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477A8120838 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:44:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f4nv3u7QWG-t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AD69120089 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:44:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419391A0999; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:44:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-216-4.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.216.4]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B74DB1A09EC; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:44:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:44:40 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Duck-Bitter: 1a0fe889162ef42c_1581961480051_817373320
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1581961480051:3315436150
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1581961480050
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF3B83521; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:44:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=uj3UqidO6mJ2rJ eVkSeUg7Z2IgA=; b=qMTskXRV0XyFt03btBRZXjcHffJu46OCZ0DqsGcaD/bEpQ GbwwHMIPNQ5dEm+/sZ/CtDLMfr/d8eWj6D7lEcRwOjJ35gVs0Op9DBeZT8uEVWVQ ZUdIv/xuoKDBN+t/fKJZLA57Jx1GU9OJYd1gyq2EbAFXzu1WMTfsVinGXtz50=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 734668351F; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:44:33 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a47
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Scaling the IETF (Re: Excessive use of interim meetings)
Message-ID: <20200217174432.GF18021@localhost>
References: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D91338@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <a85b45cf-bc11-75f8-780a-f121150f08b4@network-heretics.com> <CAMm+Lwijie8EeKF0KK5f2Cjj4wh0frQHUd7V7sYn5z3zttXCXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sx76dUUi=poigEmJhHzBTnvyLxoLffVp3wsodLHK8ajbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjBz7ba2eL6aGL34dezqGmua_fkgsPPWMxJOkabtFs+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjBz7ba2eL6aGL34dezqGmua_fkgsPPWMxJOkabtFs+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrjeeigddutdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VEJXkXVCZgCZPzZLD87-xRFU3Ys>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:44:46 -0000

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:03:00PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Many things Internet have scaled. The IETF ain't one of them. Some people
> are still insisting that it work in the same way as 25 years ago. How can
> that make sense.

Well, the IETF hasn't scaled very well, but it's still functional -- it
hasn't collapsed yet.

> W3C didn't scale either, we ended up having to create OASIS.

"There can only be so many adults in the room, and they can't keep up
with the kids."

If we want to have OASIS-style IESG-Review-less publication tracks, why
not do that.  We could even charge $$$ for that and eat OASIS' lunch.
Provided the brand for that is sufficiently distinguished from the
Standards-Track brand, it should be fine.

Also we could have a lot more Expert Review / Documentation Required
IANA registries -- far short of Standards Action --, and we could
require that Standards-Track protocols have Expert Review extensions
IANA registries as much as possible.  This would greatly alleviate the
bandwidth demands of many WGs and speed up the rate at which the IETF
(and IANA) does useful work while still retaining an element of the
"adults in the room" value that the IETF provides today.

No, I'm dead serious about this.  PKIX, HTTP, TLS, SSH, Kerberos, NFS,
BGP, this, that, and the other, all should be required to have Expert
Review w/ Documentation Required IANA registries for all extensions
except where the WG makes a strong case that WG/IETF/IESG review is
essential.

> IETF meetings are supposed to be designed for two things: working the
> drafts and exchanging ideas between the WGs and areas. And they do a poor
> job at both.

They do a good enough job of the latter, IMO.  But I'm not sure it's
worth the cost -- a whole week of hobnobbing and not getting things
done, x3/yr, which is 1/16th of the year, plus travel time plus
additional pre-meeting prep, post-meeting work, and IETF meetings take
much closer to 1/8th of each attendee's year, and the best that happens
is that consensus is facilitated in order to do actual work at with the
rest of one's 7/8ths of the year (much of which often isn't directly
IETF-related).

> How about this for a radical plan, Have a joint
> ETSI-OASIS-W3C-CABForum-IETF meeting (and anyone else). do it maybe once
> every two years. And make it all about what each of the organizations is
> doing and where they are going rather than work. Focus on the exchange part.

Sure.

> Oh and stick a trade show on the side, make a bundle

Yes!  Attach it to something like SXSW.

Nico
--