IAB issues

[avri doria]

Hi Ran,

Thanks for you open reply.

This is pretty much what I though the IAB did.  And I had
read the intro.  Though I must admit I was surprised that
you did not approve charters.  I had thought that you applied
a modest amount of direction through the approval
of charters.

In some ways your answer reflects the point i was making.
the first thing you told me, is what you did not do -
you do not exert any power on the IETF.

We have spent a lot of time in this discussion talking
about the need for an architecture.
Or perhaps for a framework.  At any rate something that
guides the IETF clearly.  If we do need something like
that, who should be responsible?  Nominally at least,
I thought that is was the job of the Internet Architecture
Board.

I have read many of the IAB RFCs.  And some have been
very helpful.  But they always appeared to me to be
individual contributions of IAB members more then
the view of the IAB.  As for the workshops they are
interesting to hear the reports on, but I am not sure
what their real affect has been.

I have also had conversations with IAB members who decry
the shape of the IETF and the cluelessness of the
participants.  And yet, in my opinion, if anyone is
responsible for leading the IETF membership out of our
cluelessness it should the IAB.

I guess I am looking for the IAB to have a real job
to do in relation to the architecture.  I may be alone
in that.  If that is the case, we should rename the body
and stop pretending that they have a real role in
architectural  oversight.  If the role is not being
filled, then we should be clear about that.

I am not looking for the IAB to dictate from
on high.  What I am looking for them to do is understand
the architectural necessities of the engineering task that
needs to be done, and to explain those in such a way as to
focus the work of the organization on the areas that need
the most help.

I am not advocating a return to the days when the IAB ruled.
But I do think the pendulum did swing
a bit too far in the other direction. And perhaps it is
an educational and guiding role instead of a controlling
role that I am looking for.  But if we are going to fix
the problems we see, e.g. the lack of architectural coherence,
and we are going to do so without the creation of new layers
of management, then we have to use the structures and the
talents we have to their best advantage.


a.


RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 03:48 America/Montreal, avri doria wrote:
> 
>> - Role of IAB.  In discussions about the IAB, what they don't,
>> or shouldn't do, is discussed as much if not more that what
>> they should do.  What should they do?  sometimes i think they
>> have been become primarily a liaison body.  Is this the case
>> and is it what is needed.
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure the IAB would be interested in hearing directly
> from folks who have concerns.  Harald and I might be the only
> IAB folks on this list, not sure.  I've copied the IAB on this
> note, so they will both see the above and have a chance to correct
> anything I say below that is wrong.
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTE:    This is MY personal opinion, not the view of
>                 the IAB as a whole.  I *never* speak for the IAB.
> 
> Generally speaking, the IAB has no *power* at all relative to the IETF.
> In specific, IAB has the very narrow role of hearing appeals of IESG
> decisions, but not much more.  The IAB as a body does ensure (at least
> during my time on IAB) that there is an IAB member present at each BOF.
> Individual IAB members normally offer advice to the IESG about 
> chartering WGs,
> but the IESG can (and regularly does) act on some advice and ignore other
> advice.  Note that this is not a "special power" of the IAB -- individual
> IETF members have equal opportunity to comment on proposed WGs and any
> WG charter revisions.
> 
> The IAB does think about architecture (which is its notional primary role)
> and publishes I-Ds (and RFCs) on both broad architectural topics
> (draft-iab-considerations-*) and specific issues (e.g. OPES) from time 
> to time.
> A list of recent IAB publications is online at http://www.iab.org.
> 
> We also organise IAB Workshops.  In June we held one on Network Managment,
> for which an I-D is available online right now.  Last year, we held one on
> Mobile Networks (really "cell phones & the Internet", IMHO).   The IETF
> often, but not always, takes those workshop results into account in 
> figuring
> out where to go.  The IAB does coordinate liaisons and IAB members also try
> to do a certain amount of damage prevention relative to several of those
> liaisons.
> 
> A more comprehensive answer to "What does the IAB do ?" is on the IAB 
> web page.
> 
>> In terms of speakers, I don't think it really matters.
>> But if anything the IESG transparency issue should be
>> presented by a member of the IESG who is eager to have
>> the body made transparent.  Also, the role of the IAB
>> should, perhaps, be discussed by someone who understands
>> what they do and has a view of what they should do.
> 
> 
> I'd suggest that we take that up, but that we do so in the IAB Plenary
> rather than the IETF Plenary, just as a matter of sorting topics into
> the right meeting slots.   Anyone with other IAB questions, comments,
> or suggestions should feel free to send them to the IAB list:
>         <iab@iab.org>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ran
> rja@extremenetworks.com
> 


-- 
Avri Doria
http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/