Subject: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:37:05 -0500

It has come to the attention of the Applications Area Directors
that one or more Applications area working groups have elected
to not meet in Adelaide, and instead to hold an "interim meeting"
in the United States, presumably because of distance and/or cost issues.

IETF is an international organization, and it is IETF's longstanding 
practice to hold its meetings in various locations around the planet.
This serves both to encourage wider participation in IETF and also
to more fairly distribute travel costs and inconvenience (over time) 
among all participants.  The scheduleing of an interim WG meeting in 
the US in lieu of a WG meeting in Adelaide undermines this policy.  
This is insulting to non-US participants of IETF (many of whom have 
attended meetings in the US for years), embarassing to IETF as 
a whole, and a threat to IETF's international stature.

Even if a working group has few participants outside the United
States, a working group does not work in isolation from other
working groups.  Attendance at IETF meetings is an invaluable 
mechanism for cross-group collaboration.  

RFC 2418 states:

   Interim meetings are subject to the
   same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation,
   and process, which apply to other working group meetings.

Since normal working group meetings require advance notification
via email to the entire IETF list, and the process for getting a meeting
slot involves prior approval of the Area Directors, the same
requirements apply to interim working group meetings.  Part of the 
reason for prior approval being required is to ensure that the 
locations of the meetings are not being chosen to favor certain 
participants over others.  

There have been several violations of this policy since publication
of RFC 2418.

Therefore,

- All interim meetings within the Applications Area which were not
  previously and explicitly approved by the Applications Area Directors, 
  are hereby cancelled.

- No Applications Area group will hold any interim meeting prior
  to April 15.

- No Applications Area group which does not hold a meeting in 
  Adelaide, will hold any interim meeting prior to July 31.
  (i.e. prior to the Pittsburg IETF meeting)

- This applies to all face to face meetings held for the purpose 
  of conducting working group discussion and to which the working 
  group is invited, even if labelled "informal" or otherwise 
  labelled to distinguish them from official working group meetings.

- Exceptions to this policy may be made for recently chartered groups,
  but Area Director approval is still required for such groups to
  schedule interim meetings.

for the Applications Area Directors,

Keith Moore

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:45:05 -0700 (MST)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

> ...

> ...

I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like it might conflict with the U.S.
Constitution's provisions concerning freedom of assembly.  It also sounds
hard to police; if some working group participants encounter each other
in an airport waiting room, are they not allowed to talk business?  What
about participants who work for the same outfit and see each other daily?

Are you going to apply the same rules to meetings of the IAB and IESG?

You could doubtless fix those modest hassles with the wording of this
demand that RFC 2418 be honored, but what is the point?  Unless you going
to slide the IETF the rest of the way into the ITU/IEEE/ANSI swamp, won't
the mailing lists continue to be the only official forums for the working
groups?  Won't the working group meetings continue to be effectively
informal, slightly more than social gatherings? 

In other words and politically correct pretense asside, the IETF is not
an international organization.  Despite its posturing, the IETF is a U.S.
or perhaps North American organization that welcomes non-U.S. participants
and occasionally spends a lot of its U.S. participants' time and money to
try to make people outside of North America feel welcome.  If the IETF
did honestly aspire to be an international organization, it would need
the characteristics of the ITU (e.g. translators and high prices for
documents).  Do you think that would be a good thing?

(I've never attended an IETF working group meeting, despite working group
participation for a lot of years.  I've never felt the lack as far as
technical things go.  I can't find words in RFC 2418 that say that the
mailing list is the authoritative forum, which strikes me as a terrible
omission or catastrophic de facto change.)

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:53:42 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Vernon Schryver writes
:

> Constitution's provisions concerning freedom of assembly.

(a) The U.S. constitution applies to the Federal government (and sometimes to 
the state governments); it does not apply to private groups.
(b) No one ever said that these folks can't meet; they just can't do it under 
the imprimatur of the IETF. 

>  It also sounds

??  I'll let the IESG speak for itself.  The IAB does not meet physically 
except at IETF meetings.  Instead, we have monthly conference calls.  We do 
hold workshops (which is expressly provided for in RFC 1601); the last such 
workshop was in Utrecht.  Not all IAB members attend all workshops; a number of 
outsiders are invited.
> informal, slightly more than social gatherings? 

The point is that some things are better accomplished in a high-bandwidth 
environment.  
> documents).  Do you think that would be a good thing?

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic of your penultimate sententce.  The 
current schedule has about 1 meeting out of 3 outside of North America.

		--Steve Bellovin

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:53:42 -0500

--Steve Bellovin

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 20:37:49 -0700 (MST)

> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>

> the state governments); it does not apply to private groups.

How arms-length is the connection between the IETF and the Federal
government?  No more NFS money, but what about the ITU entanglements?
Could Civil Service employees find it hard to get travel requests approved
for attending meetings of an outfit that gets carried away in its rules
and regulations on who can talk to whom?

> the imprimatur of the IETF. 

I read the dictum as stronger than that.  Didn't it say something
about prohibiting meetings that are nominally not WG meetings for
the purpose of subverting RFC 2418?  That's why I quoted

}                                                 or otherwise 
}   labelled to distinguish them from official working group meetings.

That's the part that I don't see as enforcable or wise, although I
sympathize with the motivation.

> The point is that some things are better accomplished in a high-bandwidth 

Yes, that's often true, but the talk of "high-bandwidth" has always been
exaggerated.  As I've said, I've never attended an IETF meeting, but
I've read an awful lot of minutes over the last >dozen years.  I haven't
read many that showed evidence effective use of that high bandwidth.
(Perhaps I'm too unimpressed by simply letting people have their say
before continuing with what was inevitable.)

> >                                                      ...   If the IETF
> > documents). ...

> current schedule has about 1 meeting out of 3 outside of North America.

The locations of meetings do not make the IETF international any more than
Congressional junkets do the same for Congress.  (That there is no need
to specify which congress I'm talking about is emblematic of the reality
that contradicts the politically correct posturing.)

The U.N. and the ITU are international organizations.  I've attended
as many meetings of them as of the IETF, so maybe my distinct
impression that they do things differently than the IETF is mistaken.
Let's see, how many RFC's are not in English?  How many WG meetings
or mailinglists?

That the IETF is de facto an U.S. outfit is not by itself a bad thing.
There are and for centuries have been many organizations in many places
that are not really international, but that welcome distant participants.
It is bad to refuse to call a "digging implement adapted for being pushed
into the ground with the foot" a spade.

] From [email-masked] Mon Feb 14 18:54:53 2000

]                                                        ...   Yes, we do
] most of our work on mailing lists, and we check meeting consensus on
] mailing lists before declaring it sealed in blood. But Face to Face
] meetings have always been places where high bandwidth discussions take
] place to clarify and progress work which is also being done on the mailing
] list. They are official meetings.

"High-bandwidth" does not need official sanction.  You can have productive
technical discussions without any official sanction, and usually better
without the burdens of officialness.  What is the difference between
"official but nothing is signed in blood" and "where things are signed in
blood"?  If nothing can be finally decided (i.e. signed in blood), what
is the substance, of "official" besides ensuring that accountants accept
expense reports?

] So, by the way, are interim meetings, under RFC 2418. We could discuss
] major initiatives which have made effective use of them  the entire SNMP
] development, the development of RSVP and Diff-serv, the development of
] OSPF, and many more. PPP development has happened as much at the
] interoperability workshops held by Pac Bell and the PPP Consortium as they
] have at IETF meetings.

Those are good examples of the distinction between engineering and official
meetings.  The PPP development I saw at Pac Bell's San Ramon facility was
a matter individuals talking semi-privately.  The semi-formal discussions
at the ends of the days announced but did not decide anything.  Note also
that at least some of those meetings did not have any IETF sanction.

I wonder if the uglier parts of the SNMP saga would not have come out far
better without one or two of the official IETF WG meetings.

]                                                           ...  Declaring an
] interim meeting for the purpose of avoiding a plenary meeting is a slap in
] the face ...

That's certainly true, but I don't see how you're going to fix that problem
without killing the mailinglists.  Working groups that fail to have quorums
at official meetings can and will still get work done.  As I know you know
too well, individuals will meet with or without IETF sanction, write
drafts, and the WG can and will progress (or not) regardless.

]                                         ...  but we have always worked on
] an ethic that says "if I am contributing to the work, the meeting must
] occasionally be near me."

That's not bad, especially for those with deep corporate or government
pockets to pay for travel.  It is good politics and fun.  However, very
little technical work is ever done in any committee meeting of a few hours,
no matter where it is held or with what official sanction.

] One sixth or more of our contributors come from Europe. A relatively small
] contingent comes from the South Pacific. Quite a large percentage come from
] North America. Hence, we put about one meeting in six in Europe and most of
] our meetings in North America. Is it not fair to put one meeting in 47 in
] the South Pacific? And why is it not an affront to those who have
] faithfully come from there, have contributed and chaired working groups
] from there, to complain about doing once what they have been doing for over
] a decade?

It's impossible to disagree with that.  I assume it's intended to
show that the IETF is an "international organization," but it does
not convince me.

Speaking of slaps in faces, I wonder if I were not a U.S. citizen if I
wouldn't feel some sting from the continual claims by the IETF that it is
an international organzation.  For example, how many AD's and IAB members
have not been U.S. residents?  Of those few that haven't been, how many
could not have "passed" as U.S. residents?--at least in email, none that
I can recall.  (I hope they'll they'll take that as a compliment on their
social skills instead of an affront to their national pride.)

---

From: Josh Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:57:09 -0800

well said!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 3:37 PM
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> 
>

---

From: Josh Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:57:09 -0800

well said!

---

From: "Parkinson, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:44:23 -0000

There is more than America out there ?

;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: John Stracke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs

Graham Klyne wrote:

> But I am still uncomfortable with it.  It implies that, somehow, any
non-US
> participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend
> purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is.  Maybe
> that also is true -- but I don't have to like it.  I very much prefer the
> "pretense"

In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving)
to
be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the
IETF more truly global.

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Yes, sir, we've graphed the data. It's a smiley|
[email-masked]|face, sir.                                     |
\================================================================/

---

From: Iain Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:40:25 +0000 (GMT)

John Stracke wrote:

>In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to

Definately!

/ikh

---

From: Iain Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:40:25 +0000 (GMT)

Definately!

/ikh

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:24:21 -0700 (MST)

> From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>

> >an international organization.  ...

> As a non-US IETF participant, I found this statement mildly insulting.  But 
> then I have to ask myself "why?".  It is true that a majority of IETF 
> participation is US-based.  It is true that the IETF secretariat is wholly 
> US-based.  It is true that the IETF is an outgrowth of a US national 
> organization.  So on the face of it, your statement appears entirely true.
>
> But I am still uncomfortable with it.

Except for the cognitive dissonance caused by the political fiction,
why feel insulted?  There are many non-U.S. institutions that variously
refuse, deign to allow, or eagerly invite and encourage participation
by U.S. citizens.  If the IETF only grudgingly allowed non-U.S.
participation, you might have reason to feel insulted.

The purpose of political correctness is to allow people to ignore and
not deal with inconvenient facts.  That more than one person found my
statement offensive instead of silly shows its accuracy.  Indignation
is the mildest reaction to attacks on political correctness.  In the
U.S. we laws against disturbing some fig leaves, the Constitution not
withstanding.  I'll not be specific, since those messes are irrelevant,
and I don't want to be lynched.

>                                      It implies that, somehow, any non-US 
> that also is true -- but I don't have to like it.  

From where are the notions of "US elite" and "second class"?  None of the
real IETF participants I've met have considered themselves members of an
elite, aside from occasional weaknesses in suffering fools gladly.  Like
many U.S. institutions, the IETF has viewed non-U.S. participants as
wonderful, as showing the IETF matters.  Recall that the cachet of non-U.S.
origin was a major part of the attraction of the ISO OSI protocol suite.

>                                                  I very much prefer the 
> "pretense" that the IETF is an organization that provides technical 
> direction for a truly global facility, and that it aspires to do so for the 
> benefit of all the world's people, with equal status and consideration 
> allowed to any who can participate, from wherever they may originate.

Exactly.

] From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>

] In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to
] be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the
] IETF more truly global.

I don't know about self-fulfilling, but eventually the IETF might
become an international organization.  If it avoids the worst
aspects of the ITU and the U.N., that could be a good thing.

The biggest obstacle to the IETF becoming more international are the
meetings, no matter where they are held.  A major reason the IETF is
as international as it is is its history of emphasizing email discussions.
It can be hard to notice national origin in email.  As that emphasis
declines (and it has significantly in practice if not rule), the IETF
risks becoming more instead of less insular and elitist.  That a
meeting in Washington is a long trip from Japan is not mitigated by
the distance to Australia from Europe.  SMTP doesn't care.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:24:21 -0700 (MST)

Exactly.

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:30:05 EST

The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple.  With so
few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip.
This would be true for a meeting at any location more than 400 miles
away.  If only one group that I am interested in is holding a session,
I can't go.  The powers that be just won't approve it.

So the side effect of not holding a session is that not only have the
working groups decided that they do not want the interest and
participation of non-U.S. members, but they don't want the interest
and participation of U.S. members either.  

This leads me to question why the working group is in fact a working
group in the IETF.  

    Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2
                 The Kermit Project * Columbia University
              612 West 115th St #716 * New York, NY * 10025
  http://www.kermit-project.org/k95.html * [email-masked]

---

From: "Anders Feder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:32:03 +0100

I think that, believing that the world is no bigger than America is a common
problem among many US citizens. No offense, so would I if I lived in US,
because after all there is quite a few states and cities to keep track of.
But my point is that we, including the Americans, speak so proudly of the
Internet as this global network interconnecting millions of computers around
the world providing a relatively cheap means of communicating and informing
across borders. Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia have all payed their part
of what makes up this Internet, just like the US have. And yet some US
citizens feel that the 'net somehow belongs to them and that they are
superior in deciding its future. Luckily, German Daimler-Benz wasn't that
short-sighted when they invented the automobile a century ago.

- Anders Feder

---

From: "Anders Feder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:32:03 +0100

- Anders Feder

---

From: "Anders Feder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:41:39 +0100

- Anders Feder

---

From: "Anders Feder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:41:39 +0100

- Anders Feder

---

From: Ian King <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:44:14 -0800

IMHO, people are reading way too much into this.  

Most of the participation is by folks from the US -- that stat is raised at
every meeting.  BTW, the Internet started in the US, those neat maps
displayed at plenary sessions show an overwhelming focus of connectivity in
the US, and many many technology companies are located in the US.  

Notwithstanding, the organization does hold meetings both inside and outside
the US, because the Internet is a global entity with international
involvement.  While this is IMHO a Good Thing, reality is that the longer
trips sometimes pose a problem for some participants -- whether that's
traveling from the US to Australia, or Australia to the US.  Statistically,
the burden hits more people for meetings outside the US, simply because
regardless of where we hold the meetings, there are more attendees from the
US than from any other place.  (At this juncture, I would like to salute the
folks from outside the US who nonetheless attend the majority of US-based
meetings.)  

To those of you outside the US who don't think there are enough meetings
outside the US: IF YOU SPONSOR THEM, WE WILL COME.  I've seen the open,
standing invitations to sponsor meetings -- so step up and sponsor.  

For those who think Australia is a long way to go: you're right, if you are
in North America or Europe.  Many WG chairs may be making an 'economic'
decision -- or their employers have made it for them.  (I'm not going
because I don't want to be away from my new baby daughter yet.)  But since
the work REALLY gets done on the mailing lists (so we say, officially), you
can still make a difference, if you so choose.  Not to say I don't think
there's a lot of value to the face-to-face meetings, but when I chaired a
WG, I got a lot of great input from people who never attended a single WG
session in person.  

Bottom line: go if you can and wish to, don't whine if you can't or won't.
And please quit with the "conspiracy theories" about US-centricity -- it's
an accident of history, nothing more.  Don't expect us Americans (or US
residents) to feel guilty or go slit our wrists over it.  And for whatever
reason, English does seem to serve as a common tongue in the world of
technology -- again, I'm not going to apologize for it.  (And it doesn't
stop us from working hard to figure out how to represent ALL the languages
of humanity in digital form....)  

Please forgive my typing -- my daughter is keeping one arm busy.  
-- Ian King, Speech Product Group, MICROSOFT CORPORATION

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs

Jeffry;

IETF is certainly US and English centric.

The current rules of IETF does not explicitely prefer some country
so much, though many important organizations have addresses in US
and English is the language of the rules. However, the rules keep
or amplify the US centric tendency, because a large number of US
participants means a large number of IAB/IESG members is likely to
be nominated.

Moreover, English centric IETF meetings are hard to be actively
attended by people whose primary language is not English. Compared
to other International organizations, IETF requires too much in
English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is
nothing.

Having a meeting in AU does not solve the latter, English, problem.

However,

> I can't go.  The powers that be just won't approve it.

it is a good solution for the first, US, problem.

Moreover, you are saying that the recent problem of IETF that there are
too many bogus WGs with too many people is also solved.

Very good.

So, all the future IETF meetings should be held in areas far away
from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language.

There many be an exception once in 10 years, of course.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:53:01 +0800

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd:

> The primary concern in the IETF is producing good protocols.

I believe that the IETF model -- for better or for worse -- is a
good thing for developing countries, compared to a membership
organization like ISOC. Having said, it does not mean that 
organizational improvement should be banned.

P.S. the aging board and steering group members reminds me to
     the late stagnated Soviet Union empire... :^).

regards,

-- 
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim --  VLSM-TJT --  http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
- DOTCOM... coma coma banana fana coma dotcom... -- the DNS game --

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:53:01 +0800

regards,

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:55:08 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Jon Crowcroft writes:

> note also, that provided the IETF doesnt start mimicing ITU in
> choosing
> meeting location, a lot of places outside the US offset travel costs
> by cheaper accomodation costs.....significantly in some cases
> (i admit london england is not a good example for this, though it is
> pretty cheap to get to from just about anywhere on average:-)

And you may find that quirks in airfares can offset the distance factor.  
Given airline load factors, I don't seem to be able to qualify for discounts 
on my trips to San Francisco from New Jersey -- which means that my tickets to 
Adelaide are only very slightly more expensive.

		--Steve Bellovin

---

From: Stewart Nolan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:23:10 -0000

> From: John Stracke [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Probably worse than nothing, unless there are much better 
> translators than babelfish out there.  WG discussions get
> down to really niggly points; a translator that doesn't
> work *perfectly* is likely to make things worse.  At
> least today, if we're talking through a language barrier, 
> there's a human brain doing the translation, able to
> recognize problems and rephrase as needed.

Via babelfish.altavista.com, and translated from English to German and back

Probably falsely than nothing, it is it many better compilers/translators
than babelfish gives out there. WG discussions down on really arrive niggly
points; a compiler/translator, that does not operate * perfectly * is
probable to form things falsely. At least today, if we speak by a language
barrier, a human brain give it, which does the translation, able, to detect
and again-formulate problems, how uses.  

And English/French/English:-

Probably worse than anything, unless there are translators much better than
the babelfish outside there. The discussions of WP descend really niggly at
the points; a translator who does not function * perfectly * is likely to
make things worse. At least today, if we speak by a linguistic barrier,
there let us be a human making translation, able brain identify problems and
reformulate them like necessary.

You can see the decay in the clarity of the original message. 
If I had received something similar purporting to be from an IETF member in
a country that I didn't speak the language of, I would assume someone had
reinitialized Mark V. Chaney.

cheers,
Stewart

---

From: Stewart Nolan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:23:10 -0000

cheers,
Stewart