Subject: AdminRest: BCP and IASA IRTF support

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:11:59 +0100

Margarets rev 01 drafts, in Section 1, 3rd para starts:

    The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides the
    administrative structure required to support the IETF standards
    process and to support the technical activities of the IETF,
    including the IESG, the IAB, IETF working groups and the IRTF.

I believe that current admin support for IRTF is pretty meager.
It seems that the above text makes IASA more explicitly responsible
for admin support for IRTF. I personally think this is fine, 
but we should be aware that that is what is being proposed by this text.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:58:13 +0100

> but we should be aware that that is what is being proposed by this text.

At this stage there is no commitment to a specific level of support,
so the text is OK. In an actual RFP or SLA this would have to be spelled
out, and foreseen in the budget. I believe you are correct that current
level of IRTF support is negligible, except for RFC publication.

    Brian

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:26:15 -0500

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> I believe that current admin support for IRTF is pretty meager.  It
> seems that the above text makes IASA more explicitly responsible for
> admin support for IRTF. I personally think this is fine, but we
> should be aware that that is what is being proposed by this text.
> 

Bert-

It appears (to me) that IRTF RGs are meeting before and after IETF
meetings increasingly more often.  Is there additional cost to this?
Is that expense currently borne by IETF meeting registration fees?
(Personally, I think it would be fine if it were.  I think interaction
between IETF and IRTF participants is a good thing and benefits the
IETF.)  If the IETF is not currently paying for these meetings, does
the change you refer to above imply that it would in the future?

--aaron

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:58:17 -0500

> the change you refer to above imply that it would in the future?

These meetings are a fine illustration that the relationship needs to be 
known to all parties.

Sometimes, the RGs get rooms for free. But when it incurs extra cost for 
the IETF, they have been instructed to do the same thing as any other group 
that wants to meet "next to the IETF": "None of our business. Ask the 
hotel."
My impression is that usually the RG can easily find someone to sponsor 
this if they are active enough to need physical meetings in large rooms.

If there is one support structure with responsibility for both, it makes 
much more sense to pay for the rooms out of the meeting budget (probably 
getting a better deal), and (perhaps more controversial) ask the RG 
participants to pay the meeting fee (pointing out that they are thereby 
invited to all the IETF meetings too!)

                             Harald

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:06:59 -0500 (EST)

> meetings increasingly more often.  Is there additional cost to this?

related question - do people need to register for the IETF meeting to
attend the IRTF RG meetings?

Scott

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:22:09 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:
    Harald> If there is one support structure with responsibility for
    Harald> both, it makes much more sense to pay for the rooms out of
    Harald> the meeting budget (probably getting a better deal), and
    Harald> (perhaps more controversial) ask the RG participants to pay
    Harald> the meeting fee (pointing out that they are thereby invited
    Harald> to all the IETF meetings too!)

  Of the RG people that I know, they all attend IETF.
  Of course, I might never meet the RG people that don't attend
IETF. If so, who are they?

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:47:00 +0100

Michael Richardson wrote:
...
> IETF. If so, who are they?

There are such people - I know of at least one person who was
in DC on the Saturday before the IETF for an RG meeting, and
who drove home on Saturday night. But I don't think it's
relevant - the question is whether RG support is on or off
the IETF budget. In view of the budget numbers Harald gave us,
the answer surely has to be "off" at present. That doesn't mean IRTF
support should be out of scope for IASA in principle, though.

     Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:47:50 +0100

> support should be out of scope for IASA in principle, though.

If the IRTF support is on the order of USD 1000 per year, it really doesn't 
matter to the budget whether it's "on" or "off".
As a matter of principle (because I regard the IRTF as part of the "large 
tent IETF" that RFC 3716 described), I think it should be "on", and we can 
choose whether to give any money to it in a specific year or not.

Telling the IRTF that they need to set up their own funding structures if 
they need support for their activities seems "not right" to me.

                   Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:08:09 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> If the IRTF support is on the order of USD 1000 per year, it really 
> doesn't matter to the budget whether it's "on" or "off".
> As a matter of principle (because I regard the IRTF as part of the 
> "large tent IETF" that RFC 3716 described), I think it should be "on", 
> and we can choose whether to give any money to it in a specific year or 
> not.
> 
> Telling the IRTF that they need to set up their own funding structures 
> if they need support for their activities seems "not right" to me.

Harald, I completely agree in principle - the problem is a purely
practical one when budgets are tight. So I'd expect to see IRTF in
scope for IASA, but the budget line should be broken out for an
explicit decision.

      Brian

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:15:40 -0800 (PST)

Hi Michael -

I actually looked at this issue in drafting this report.  bcp8 seems to
place the irtf in the "inner" ietf circle (e.g., iesg, iab, etc...).
And, as Harald notes, their support needs are fairly minor.  So,
I lumped their funding needs in the "misc." category of the ietf
financials.  

We have enough on our plate for now, so the structure and
funding of the irtf just didn't seem worth calling out as an
issue.   At $1000/year, seems like one of those things we can 
not worry about for now.

Regards,

Carl

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> 
> 
> --On s?ndag, november 14, 2004 15:47:00 +0100 Brian E Carpenter

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:41:09 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Carl" == Carl Malamud <[email-masked]> writes:
    Carl> I actually looked at this issue in drafting this report.  bcp8
    Carl> seems to place the irtf in the "inner" ietf circle (e.g.,
    Carl> iesg, iab, etc...).  And, as Harald notes, their support needs
    Carl> are fairly minor.  So, I lumped their funding needs in the
    Carl> "misc." category of the ietf financials.

  I strongly agree with this.