Dates: 16-17 May
Location: Radisson Blu Saga Hotel, Reykjavik
Hagatorg
107 Reykjavik
Iceland
1530-1630: Parking Lot 2
1645-1700: Wrap up: Review of action items, final thoughts
IAB elders tell newbies how it all really works:-)
General discussion bringing new members up to speed on past discussions and maybe agreeing overall goals/direction. (This'd be better lead by someone who knows what's been done and discussed already but I'd like to suggest the topic so am willing to try lead the discussion badly if needed:-)
Many people fail to see what the IAB does, regardless of its web page, announcements at plenaries, etc. What can we do to increase the visibility of the IAB? or maybe it doesn't need increasing?
Some relatively modest suggestions:
We had a couple of frustrating experiences with the "Human Right Reviews" last year. My personal analysis (Christian's) is that the reviews are attacking too many themes at the same time.
Some of that is redundant with existing reviews -- privacy for example is already tackled as part of the security directorate's reviews. But there are other themes that would merit some higher exposure, such as:
Censorship. Should the IETF protocols facilitate censorship, because of children, parental controls, enterprise networks, pedophiles and terrorists? Or should we work on tools that make censorship much harder, just like we did with encryption? Is that the same debate as "moar encryption"? How to we get to consensual position in the IETF about that?
Access in under-privileged areas. There are many IETF efforts on making the fast Internet even faster, especially in the transport area. Are we disenfranchising the denizens of remote places with poor connectivity? Same questions about how to get consensus, etc.
Accessibility. Are our protocols hard to use by people with disabilities? What about our standard process?
I think that establishing priorities there would be useful. Even more useful would be a process to establish such priorities.
[Note: this is likely to be overtaken by events before the retreat, as well]
We adopted draft-iab-protocol-maintenance, what does this need for publication?
The IAB has a diverse set of responsibilities. Some of those functions are critical to the function of the overall organization (appointments, appeals, liaison, what have you), some less so. Is there any way in which the responsibilities could be reduced?
The job of RSE oversight has been divested to the RSOC: is that still appropriate?
The planning for plenaries has been less successful of late.
The technical aspects of the IAB are less well-defined and seem largely based on whatever the IAB is currently preoccupied with. What work the IAB has published could easily be the product of those few dedicated individuals who contribute. The convening of workshops, which is an extension of mix of aspects of the IAB from liaison to new-work shepherding, could be done in several other ways with the same sort of effect. The shepherding of new work into the IETF could be supported by a directorate-like structure just as effectively. The statements and pronouncements that the IAB makes would be more respectable coming from the IETF. Are these all functions that serve a purpose? Or is that purpose simply to make the role more attractive to a particular kind of person?
This function of the IAB hasn't been successful for quite some time. Let's discuss not doing it anymore.
I added this awhile back but it may have been overtaken by events.
Check-in on the program.
Possibly break out into small groups to work on these?
Discuss current draft and future direction.
There are several aspects to discuss:
The draft was updated before IETF-104, with input from Niels among others. What's the next step? Other updates, discussion, adoption, or abandoning?
References:
Also do we want to still work on the Chokepoints draft, or abandon it?
References:
Who is doing what in this space in the word: IAB, ISOC, ChathamHouse, DEDR, ...? Can we review the different activities and decide whether the set of activities is the right one or needs some adjustment?
We need to plan for the workshop. At this point we should know how many submissions we got, and what participants were invited. Determine what the agenda should be.
It seems to me that the communications-security -only threat model that Internet systems get designed for is outdated. This is due to three factors:
We need a new model.
(Added by Stephen: great topic, good to devote more time here than some others I'd argue:-)
Wiki (x2), GitHub, WebEx, e-mail (x2), jabber, twitter account, Web site, RFCs, IAB tag in the IETF blog -- we've got it all. It'd be really nice if we could consolidate the information we have to at least refer to each other where appropriate, and remove outdated information where possible.
The content of this page was last updated on 2020-06-16. It was migrated from the old IAB wiki on 2023-12-04.