RE: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

Adrian Farrel <> Mon, 19 October 2020 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970223A1024 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.005
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u_-IIrN-L1Mc for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AE483A0FE4 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 09JInfXK014137 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:49:41 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D8122044 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:49:41 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EE0022042 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:49:41 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 09JIne70011153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:49:40 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Working Group Chairs'" <>
References: <> <30344.1602894208@localhost> <> <> <> <> <31255.1603126883@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <31255.1603126883@localhost>
Subject: RE: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:49:38 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <058701d6a648$998eb150$ccac13f0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQI77AexSPHL9JpIIXmqvGP2y+Qc2wGuj4H9AkNWk4cCcxKtYQGBqS+QAeRt1iYCmiDn8KhxjXMw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.204-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--7.204-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--7.204200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: rYpa/RC+czHxIbpQ8BhdbAYtEovY17GNVBPjB/Of+FQlSdV/WXx412ly s1PDhWLomumqbO7bnr08Zp3xik1JZ2sWrPYGNN4DL1wE1KWC9io1wgjXWX56uLde1jSJlmOQYj+ Z+WoxMfR7XIeVRWUk3EFZdR7R39gdxrorW9rgUXNrgflyxmA3svi5+Wgf5RIZNWdAxATiIiUUBk PEqLiWvuX7aImg8Ag9ArXWkusYRP3dMUDi2j2kHmfd6M+N3X1xOxjb9QQbt+Rc6IXBFD5lzCzrM MF3CEtH8SXQ3wH4DTvPqmgsJnWFZra2Vh2jQ2eEe98LrotgpVT4P7Nt1jwSKatkcxxU6EVIWXjF 9NKzdClN9XVFzHGStIWA5FFJXG+RQo+W44QpPf8fnX4UWUnCwTyaHpFbxLirGxbFDAEoIoomSkS BaVwPgSIGzplHwu9ZRQc1b9D3waNt+8/9uT+aHZxVZzZr7+O78XcdkD8x77GXvrcNT6IW5i+8Ox ujShyxXn3UDFWhGbYHdptXFFME7wzyMxeMEX6wOX/V8P8ail3InWAWA4yE6ZiPn2g4sHYaDMq3z /Y/gtUgBwKKRHe+ryHSoLLbaH0MbxEvPxPCUoGlZb1vAY6UT6CyKf4yxmxU7wPVVL4qOlU=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:49:52 -0000

This thread (re-)opens the question of the value of a full virtual meeting.

There is unquestionable (to me) value in the plenary session, and a few of
the agenda-slot meetings are widely attended.

But it seems that the main draw of an in-person meeting is the interactions
in the corridors and after people have spoken at agenda sessions. Also the
ad hoc gatherings to advance topics. 
It seems to me that most/all of this was missing at IETF-108 and is likely
to be missing at IETF-109.

So what is left between the packed one-week agenda and a sparse three-month
schedule of "interims".

Maybe the only benefit I can see is that rather than having to be out of bed
every week for a poorly-scheduled interim, I can be out of bed for a whole
week for the IETF week. I am not sure that is an advantage, especially when
weighed against agenda clashes (at IETF-108 I tried listening to multiple
audio streams at once, and it fried my poor brain).

So I'd like to see a renewed discussion of why we are doing this to

(And yes, this discussion should probably be in schmoo)

(And, oh yes, what about the funding model)


-----Original Message-----
From: WGChairs <> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 19 October 2020 18:01
To: David Noveck <>
Cc: Working Group Chairs <>
Subject: Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

David Noveck <> wrote:
    > It never occurred to me that there were people who would attend the
    > 12Am-6Am meeting and had no expectation of people attending an
    > version of that.  It now appears that there are such people but I
    > there will be very few.

Yes, there are many people who attend a meeting almost every single session,
and often have conflicts.

Some of them are Area Directors (IESG), and IAB.
But, many of them are just active members.

If your WG does not require or experience interactions with people outside
some specific working set, then I recommend not dealing with this time zone.
Hold a virtual interim meeting.  Hold a series of them.

The CELLAR WG, of which I'm co-chair, has met only once at an IETF meeting,
for instance.
It's a group of ~8 to ~12 people who are very github/ML focused, and who
mostly work on these documents outside of their day$job.

{typing this in an editor that is saving it's files over NFSv4, btw}

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect
]        |   ruby on rails