DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT * DRAFT
INTERNET RESEARCH STEERING GROUP (IRSG)
Minutes of the November 28, 2023 IRSG Teleconference
Reported by: Jenny Bui, IETF Secretariat
1.1 Roll Call
Carsten Bormann (T2TRG Chair)
Jenny Bui (Secretariat)
Ignacio Castro (RASPRG Chair)
Laurent Ciavaglia (NMRG Chair)
Reese Enghardt (ICCRG Chair)
Simone Ferlin (ICCRG Chair)
Liz Flynn (Secretariat)
Allison Mankin (At-Large Member)
Marie-Jose Montpetit (COINRG Chair)
Mallory Knodel (HRPC Chair)
Dirk Kutscher (DINRG/ICNRG Chair)
Dave Oran (ICNRG Chair)
Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)
Melinda Shore (At-Large Member)
Brian Trammell (PANRG Chair)
Rod Van Meter (QIRG Chair)
None
o Sofía Celi to draft text for guidance to IRTF document shepherds
None
o draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv
o draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering
o draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge
o draft-irtf-cfrg-ristretto255-decaf448
o draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping
o draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute
o draft-irtf-cfrg-voprf
None
o draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases
o draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines
o draft-irtf-cfrg-frost
None
None
Brian mentioned a FYI meeting in Zurich with SCION Association folks, may lead to call for adoption for SCION drafts in PANRG (where adoption = "RG consensus").
Dave mentions that one of things that they strongly try to advocate is to try to get relevant IESG members (Éric Vyncke?) to be explicit as to what they want to get done in a research group to make it ready to go over to standardization.
Carsten asked for clarification about adoption as it can mean two different things. It can mean adopt as a document that a research group agrees will be interesting when published or you can adopt it as a document to achieve research group consensus.
Brian replied with his chair hat on, if it was adopted in PANRG it would be to get a research group consensus about that document.
Allison asked if people are really conscious of the change control?
Brian replied, yes.
(still under discussion)
Colin replied to Mallory’s question in the chat, and agrees that the HRPC charter revision needs to happen.
Rod brought up about requesting 2 hour meetings which ended up in the mornings and caused a lot of conflicts between the research groups.
Colin has received feedback from Jay and made some minor changes.
Colin asks what, if anything, we should be doing about preemptively blocking posting rights, or potentially attendance at IRTF organized events, for people we know or strongly have reason to believe that they’ve been engaged in problematic behaviors outside the IRTF. People who potentially have a history of violence, or threatening violence, or sexual assault in other venues and try to participate in the IRTF either by a mailing list or by attending a meeting. And we have reason to believe that their participation is going to cause other IRTF participants to have concerns for their safety.
This is an area where we’ve had problems in the IRTF in the past and has been a discussion that Colin has had over the past few months with the ombudsteam, Jay, and Vidgis (IETF lawyer). It would be useful to have a written policy here. The policy could document the status quo.
Carsten asked who actually gets to execute on that policy? As he would like to have an unequivocal policy to point to, but also wouldn’t want to be in a position that deny access to someone who’s not properly managed by the policy.
Dirk asked if we have these problems to actually have a policy?
Colin mentioned that there was one case before he was IRTF chair, someone behaved problematically outside the IRTF, and the cases mentioned above.
Brian mentions that the IRTF is fairly embedded into the IETF and the IETF does have an ombudsteam, and asks if a policy is owned by the IESG or the LLC Board?
Colin replied, he thinks the IESG owned some of it and some LLC.
Brian thinks it is weird if the IRTF has their own policy, and thinks it should involve a smaller committee (Jay, lawyers, and ombudsteam).
Colin replies that anything we come to a conclusion here, we’re not going to just adopt blindly. There will be a discussion with Jay, ombudsteam, IESG, and lawyers.
Allison mentioned that she has been part of the ombudsteam since the beginning and mentions that there are a lot of details in the anti-harassment document that also includes the types of solutions that will be needed for this type of thing. Recommends everyone to read RFC 7776.
Allison further explains that this definitely involves legal. Legal and LLC are prepared to take ownership in a way where it does not cause the ombudsteam or research chair to go to court.
Mallory mentions that it’s not clear if something is IRTF only since if something happens at an IRTF meeting which is happening within the larger IETF meeting. Mallory thinks that the IESG should take more of a leadership in this.
Colin replied that the IESG can’t take leadership of something that involves IRTF groups. The ombudsteam and legal are shared amongst the two organizations, but we do need an IRTF specific policy.
Mallory brought up that there’s no clarity when something is an IRTF thing or an IETF thing.
Marie-Jose thinks that there will never be any policy that will prevent this from happening as it happened inside the IRTF mailing list and outside. The IETF is an international organization, and in fact that the person is not in the country - there was no jurisdiction. We need a better pointer to the non harassment policy.
Colin agrees that this is a difficult problem, and mentions that this is one of the reasons they’re developing a code of conduct.
Colin mentioned that as IRTF chair he can hand out a number of fee waivers, and is asking for guidance on creating a policy on how to handle prioritizing fee waivers requests.
Mallory asked why there’s a limit and how was it set? Mallory mentions that the invited speakers are doing them a favor.
Colin responded that he doesn’t know why there’s a limit or how it was set. Jay wants the IRTF to come up with a policy for how we grant them.
(the conversation will continue on the mailing list)
Colin brought up that there was an issue in Prague about redacting transcripts, and Jay has asked that we create a policy on this. The discussion is mostly around the slides, video recording, and transcripts and whether those cases where it’s reasonable to redact parts of that.
Colin continues by mentioning that the record should normally reflect what was presented and that we should only redact things in exceptional cases.
Rod asks if the redaction extends to audio and video recording, who’s responsible and does it cost money?
Colin responds that Meetecho does, and thinks it does cost a small amount of money. The bigger issue is that these things often get released to YouTube and it’s hard to change them after that point.
Mallory mentions that YouTube deals with a lot of take down stuff, and thinks they have tooling to slice things out or edit.
Colin points out that content does go out to YouTube fairly quickly, and even if they can redact it, the issues around how many people have saved it and so on.
Brian agrees with Mallory on this subject as there are places where we need to do this for various legal reasons, but should be very transparent to the community about how we do that.
Colin thinks highlighting that a change has been made will draw more attention to the problematic material so we’ll need to be a little more careful.