IAB issues

[James Kempf]

Avri,

The difficult process issue here is that the IESG controls the technical agenda,
as Ran mentioned, so IAB really needs to depend on them to tell us when to get
involved. IAB members pretty much can't simply wade into a technical discussion
as IAB members They of course can as WG members or WG chairs, which some of us
are, but then other WG members can quibble with them just as they would any
other WG member. WG members can't quibble with an AD: if they say something is
missing or wrong, then it must be put in or removed; otherwise, the document
doesn't go to RFC.

What typically happens as a result is that review of "small" architecure - the
kinds of architectural discussions that result in "framework" documents from
particular WGs - is done through the WG Last Call/IESG review process without
any official IAB involvement. Because the WG is focussed on their specific
problem, it is only after the document gets to the IESG that the overall fit
with the rest of the Internet architecture is considered. That contributes to
the IESG workload, and occasionally, problems are overlooked in the crush of
reviews.

The kinds of architectural issues that IAB typically gets called in on is where
there is great controversy about a "big" architectural issue, such as OPES or
internationalizing DNS. The IAB can be quite helpful in these cases, because it
is seen as a neutral party with some amount of architectural clue.

As for liasons, the fact is that IAB basically votes on whether liasons should
be set up, but who actually does the liasing is another matter. The ADs are more
and more taking on important technical liasons, such as 3GPP, because, again,
they control the technical agenda so they are in a position to get action on
techical issues that arise out of the liasing, though there are some IAB members
who are liasons to nontechnical groups. Again, this contributes to an increase
in AD workload because liasons are becoming more and more important as outside
standardization groups come to depend on IETF for their basic technology.

                    jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "avri doria" <avri@sm.luth.se>
To: <problem-statement@alvestrand.no>
Cc: <john.loughney@nokia.com>; <rja@extremenetworks.com>; <iab@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: IAB issues


> I agree with John here.  I think that in addition to documenting
> the issues, the architecture and the framework for the IETF,
> the IAB should engage in educational and mentoring efforts.
> I would like to see more IAB involvement as WG technical advisors.
> And I think more substantive architectural presentations, not just
> solutions but problem analysis, at IAB plenaries would be
> very useful.  Since many people fly on Saturdays for the
> cheaper flights, scheduling more tutorials for the
> Sundays (like the security one i am looking forward to:
> an IAB idea?) is a good idea.
>
>  From my too many years in nomcom I know that most IAB members
> are picked for their architectural savvy and not their political
> or liaison prowess (though some have been wonderful surprises
> in those areas as well).  I think they need to share it more with
> the community.  Lead by example, by mentoring and by educating.
>
> a.
>
> john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> > Hi Ran,
> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>What more would you suggest that we do ?
> >
> >
> > My 2 cents.  WGs are often forced to wander in the wilderness
> > for some time, get some sort of consensus and do practical
> > work.  Often, folks participate in the IETF because it is
> > their job & they may not be completely clueful about
> > prior art.  Anyhow, some of the work that they do may not
> > be in-line with architectural principles.  So, what I would
> > like the IAB to do is have a member occassionally help
> > some work groups apply the correct architectural principles
> > to the on going work.  It could be simple as a presentation
> > during a WG meeting on issues to consider - it could be
> > reviewing, at a early stage, key WG deliverables or
> > could be a presentation on key issues at the IAB plenaries.
> >
> > John
> >
>
>
> --
> Avri Doria
> http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/
>
>
>