From nobody Fri Jan 27 10:58:34 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D8AC14CE4A; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:58:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wvPdDKK4V47A; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:58:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D71E3C14CE3B; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:58:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id o5so4835208qtr.11; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:58:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:cc:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:from:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KxSVteS0guHu418aDGUjynsn9S4tXU7x7kW8s4+7Yv8=; b=KNVEyIcvC94MOV7URva/MrnUqtgzvo1rilO9io1xrVtWzZy0RsFVK4PBZ5IKMLUiVd aOajVtmS3YmLRYPWNRPtfhAk/LgO3MTabQUPG6+X3SFokEc3pKtPEU7sNSQjAvij5UrU T+WL8cJ6XifWGVAWqnHcpeAQbkRDi62lE3JhacL78AsnCWU8KBYJB2uAZDM49/vBnE+7 TPYFN/fYKCeijICiCUJsWLieHvcx0ryHLHIhby37piZqGQ64etbD1DYK8D00ezCqTXtC 5LO8Z5LboluU522AfpWqolc9gpJ71ZHb1sSvQD+D8qaJ4amX9EVe8j/1/bOdehcl5K5F LZrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:cc:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:from:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KxSVteS0guHu418aDGUjynsn9S4tXU7x7kW8s4+7Yv8=; b=kWoSm6gRo8sDO7E7hTvKHxNHjLfL4m1/JTx1/Shw/T4bW9SH1h2qxDPSeTtpguM5Ki +HgYH8/9KcY9UPBT8STN3OZYtoJevx2ucD49LuCppYVAkc4eOR6QPVOLKkigMg8D5tBu q7DL5JJalOOUpx13+ho8AFrthceYVRzktJ3o7Z3u/K71cFrjgxMpNK69mYkz/60U8R2m Z6OHWynbQ6E2Ru37YPCTPOpVZvRB3/EsQqUCS0iGlo7IQirTJyWdCBDlF2l1Ul4jfzoA 5ECDbtFRAoEArkFRpRf/WtUYLGppNwuzPovPWE9pFjyDtvyah4tlOuNc2ySXJ98Ja7de nAiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krqc+hZAViT8noLN8Aqol8W9jrBJm1ECMUZ5vTZAgk1nesYJinE v6AluJcU242NDGkgTkM8N0XVPqGA/AM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuGqo3UZVk+j5zNNMgu6BID6MsQuTWpmc+omKsbFRDFLQsVV8MxvffoU84A9xjhR0uFmYawQw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4251:0:b0:3b6:82ae:44ff with SMTP id r17-20020ac84251000000b003b682ae44ffmr47684831qtm.60.1674845905382; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:58:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([136.56.133.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l16-20020ac84cd0000000b003b630456b8fsm3106051qtv.89.2023.01.27.10.58.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:58:24 -0800 (PST) From: Acee Lindem Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0CC7C860-7177-44D8-98FC-87370146AD17" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 13:58:13 -0500 Cc: Routing Directorate , elergy@ietf.org, draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis@ietf.org To: Routing ADs X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1) Archived-At: Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Last Call Review for draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04 X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:58:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0CC7C860-7177-44D8-98FC-87370146AD17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing = Directorate, please see: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Early Review/Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04.txt Reviewer: Acee Lindem Review Date: 01/26/2023 IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: Best Current Practice. =20 Summary: This draft makes RFC 8989 NomCom eligibility criteria update permanent.=20= The updated criteria includes remote attendence, WG chairing, and RFC=20 publication. This document is basically ready for publication, but has = nits that=20 should be considered prior to publication. The intent of the draft is = clear but the readability could benefit from the editorial comments attached. =20 Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Nits: The mathematical expression in Figure 4 is too wide to fit on a standard RFC page and should be spread over multiple lines. I've suggested a way this could be done in the diff. Thanks, Acee --Apple-Mail=_0CC7C860-7177-44D8-98FC-87370146AD17 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="Diff: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04.txt - draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8"; filename*1=989bis-04-acee.html Content-Type: text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="Diff: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04.txt - draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04-acee.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Diff: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04.txt - draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04-acee.txt
  draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04.txt   draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04-acee.txt
       
Skipping Skipping
  draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04   draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04
   
  Abstract   Abstract
   
  The IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) appoints candidates to several   The IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) appoints candidates to several
  IETF leadership committees. RFC8713 provides criteria for NomCom   IETF leadership committees. RFC8713 provides criteria for NomCom
  membership that attempt to ensure that NomCom volunteers are members   membership that attempt to ensure that NomCom volunteers are members
  of the loosely defined IETF community, by requiring in-person   of the loosely defined IETF community, by requiring in-person
  attendance in three of the past five in- person meetings. In 2020   attendance in three of the past five in-person meetings. In 2020
  and 2021, the IETF had six consecutive fully online plenary meetings   and 2021, the IETF had six consecutive fully online plenary meetings
  that drove rapid advancement in remote meeting technologies and   that drove rapid advancement in remote meeting technologies and
  procedures, including an experiment that included remote attendance   procedures, including an experiment that included remote attendance
  for NomCom eligibility. This document updates RFC8713 by defining a   for NomCom eligibility. This document updates RFC8713 by defining an
  new set of eligibility criteria from first principles, with   updated set of eligibility criteria from first principles, with
  consideration to the increased salience of remote attendance.   consideration to the increased salience of remote attendance.
   
  Discussion Venues   Discussion Venues
   
  This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
   
  Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
  https://github.com/ietf-wg-elegy/rfc8989bis.   https://github.com/ietf-wg-elegy/rfc8989bis.
       
Skipping Skipping
   
   
  A basic principle is that the community should govern itself, so   A basic principle is that the community should govern itself, so
  volunteers must have a demonstrated commitment to the IETF. Limiting   volunteers must have a demonstrated commitment to the IETF. Limiting
  the number of volunteers sponsored by any one organization avoids the   the number of volunteers sponsored by any one organization avoids the
  potential for mischief that disrupts IETF operations or works against   potential for mischief that disrupts IETF operations or works against
  the interests of the community as a whole.   the interests of the community as a whole.
   
  However, attitudes to business travel evolve, and remote meeting   However, given that attitudes toward business travel evolve and
  technology continues to improve, to the extent that many longstanding   remote meeting technology continues to improve, many longstanding
  community members choose to participate remotely. A requirement for   community members choose to participate remotely. A requirement for
  in-person attendance has always excluded some from qualification from   in-person attendance has always excluded some from qualification for
  the NomCom, due to cost or personal reasons. Further, the NomCom has   the NomCom, due to cost or personal reasons. Further, the NomCom has
  completed two cycles using entirely online tools.   completed two cycles using entirely online tools.
   
  Counting remote attendance lowers the barriers to entry. As the IETF   Counting remote attendance lowers the barriers to entry. As the IETF
  is committed to having a no-fee remote option   is committed to having a no-fee remote option
  ([I-D.ietf-shmoo-remote-fee]) the only required investment is to log   ([I-D.ietf-shmoo-remote-fee]), the only required investment is to log
  on once per meeting at a specific time (sometimes a locally   on once per meeting at a specific time (sometimes a locally
  inconvenient hour). While this document does not formally impose a   inconvenient hour). While this document does not formally impose a
  requirement for the NomCom to function entirely remotely, including   requirement for the NomCom to function entirely remotely, including
  remote-only attendees in the pool is likely to effectively require a   remote-only attendees in the pool is likely to effectively require a
  remote component to NomCom operations.   remote component to NomCom operations.
   
  Finally, overly restrictive criteria work against getting a broad   Finally, overly restrictive criteria work against getting a broad
  talent pool.   talent pool.
       
Skipping Skipping
  that to have even a 50% chance of controlling six or more NomCom   that to have even a 50% chance of controlling six or more NomCom
  positions, an attacker needs roughly 60% of the volunteer pool. For   positions, an attacker needs roughly 60% of the volunteer pool. For
  example, if there are 300 "legitimate" volunteers, an attacker must   example, if there are 300 "legitimate" volunteers, an attacker must
  produce 365 volunteers to exceed a 50% chance of NomCom capture (see   produce 365 volunteers to exceed a 50% chance of NomCom capture (see
  Appendix A).   Appendix A).
   
  A sudden surge in the number of volunteers, particularly of people   A sudden surge in the number of volunteers, particularly of people
  that no one recognizes as a part of the community, is an early-   that no one recognizes as a part of the community, is an early-
  warning sign for the community, leadership and the IETF Secretariat   warning sign for the community, leadership, and the IETF Secretariat
  to further investigate. The community should monitor and assess a   to further investigate. The community should monitor and assess a
  sudden increase in the number of online registration fee waivers   sudden increase in the number of online registration fee waivers
  awarded in accordance with Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-shmoo-remote-fee].   awarded in accordance with Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-shmoo-remote-fee].
   
   
   
   
   
       
Skipping Skipping
  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8989>.   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8989>.
   
  Appendix A. NomCom Capture Calculations   Appendix A. NomCom Capture Calculations
   
  Section 4 offers some mathematical results for the probability of   Section 4 offers some mathematical results for the probability of
  NomCom capture. This appendix shows the work.   NomCom capture. This appendix shows the work.
   
  Note that the number of combinations of b items chosen from a   Note that the number of combinations of b items chosen from a
  population of a item is often expressed as   population of a item is often expressed as:
   
  a !   a !
  binom{a}{b} = {--------------}   binom{a}{b} = {--------------}
  (a - b) ! b !   (a - b) ! b !
   
  Figure 1   Figure 1
   
  A.1. No per-organization limit   A.1. No per-organization limit
   
  The first computation assumes there is no limit of two per   The first computation assumes there is no limit of two per
  organization, or equivalently, no organization produces more than two   organization, or equivalently, no organization produces more than two
  volunteers.   volunteers.
   
  Let L be the number of "legitimate" volunteers (i.e. those not allied   Let L be the number of "legitimate" volunteers (i.e., those not allied
  with an attacker" and A be the number of attacking volunteers. Then   with an attacker) and A be the number of attacking volunteers. Then
  there are   there are
   
  binom{L + A}{10}   binom{L + A}{10}
   
  ways to select a NomCom. The number of outcomes where attackers   ways to select a NomCom. The number of outcomes where attackers
  capture the NomCom is   capture the NomCom is:
  __ 10   __ 10
  \ [binom{A}{i}binom{L}{10 - i}]   \ [binom{A}{i}binom{L}{10 - i}]
  /__ i = 6   /__ i = 6
   
  Figure 2   Figure 2
  and the probability of capture is therefore   and the probability of capture is therefore:
   
  __ 10 binom{A}{i}binom{L}{10 - i}   __ 10 binom{A}{i}binom{L}{10 - i}
  \ {---------------------------}   \ {---------------------------}
  /__ i = 6 binom{L + A}{10}   /__ i = 6 binom{L + A}{10}
   
  Figure 3   Figure 3
   
   
       
Skipping Skipping
  Assume that the population of L is drawn from L different   Assume that the population of L is drawn from L different
  organizations (this assumption is unfavorable to the attacker).   organizations (this assumption is unfavorable to the attacker).
  Assume also that there are three conspiring organizations. Then no   Assume also that there are three conspiring organizations. Then no
  more than 6 members can be drawn from A.   more than 6 members can be drawn from A.
   
  Let B be the number of nominees per attacking organization, so that A   Let B be the number of nominees per attacking organization, so that A
  = 3B.   = 3B.
   
  The number of combinations to pick exactly N attackers, N <= 6, is   The number of combinations to pick exactly N attackers, N <= 6, is:
   
  C(N) =  
  _ _   _ _
    __ min(N, 2)|
    C(N) = binom{L}{10 - N}\ | binom{B}{i}
    /__ i = 0 |_
    _
  __ min(N, 2)| __ min(2, N - i) |   __ min(2, N - i) |
  binom{L}{10 - N}\ | binom{B}{i}\ (binom{B}{j}binom{B}{min(2, N - i - j)}) |   \ (binom{B}{j}binom{B}{min(2, N - i - j)}) |
  /__ i = 0 |_ /__ j = 0 _|   /__ j = 0 _|
  Figure 4   Figure 4
   
  And the probability of capture is   And the probability of capture is:
   
  C(6)   C(6)
  {-------------}   {-------------}
  __ 6   __ 6
  \ C(i)   \ C(i)
  /__ i = 0   /__ i = 0
   
  Figure 5   Figure 5
--Apple-Mail=_0CC7C860-7177-44D8-98FC-87370146AD17--