Participants:
- Colin Perkins
- Spencer Dawkins
- Mat Ford
- Jane Coffin
- Marie Jose-Montpetit
- Melinda Shore
- Stanislav Smyshlyaev
- Wojciech Kozlowski
- Laurent Ciavaglia
- Ari Keränen
- Lars Eggert
- Mallory Knodel
- Dave Oran
- Carsten Bormann
- Jerome Francois
- Mirja Kühlewind
IETF 112 will be an online-only event.
Planning starting for meetings during 2022 to potentially be hybrid events, with a mix of in-person and online participants. Nothing confirmed yet – if you have opinions or suggestions around how this should work, let Colin know
Jay sent out a consultation on the financial aspects of COVID-impacted meetings recently. Please review and comment.
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-10 was in IRSG review this time last year and received strong push back. The draft has now been significantly revised. IRSG members who had concerns last year are encouraged to review to see if it’s now acceptable.
draft-irtf-qirg-principles-07 – Marie-Jose volunteered to review, but material is different enough from usual IRTF work that could do with an additional review
draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs-06 – Dave Oran reviewed, but needs review from someone more independent from the work
Full status report: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/irtf/wiki/IRSGReviewLog
Colin reminded IRSG members about the importance of reviewing drafts prior to publication. For final polls, especially, when drafts have already received extensive review, performing a quick check that there are no obvious problems in your areas of expertise, followed by a “no objection” ballot, is useful.
There was a question of whether it’s acceptable to delegate IRSG reviews. Final ballot reviews cannot be delegated, but equally are supposed to be relatively quick. Delegating detailed IRSG reviews to outside experts, who have not previously been involved in the discussion, seems reasonable, but the delegating IRSG member is responsible for ensuring the quality of the review.
The IESG made a statement on inclusive language, encouraging participants to use the guidance in NIST.IR.8366 when making contributions to the IETF. The IAB has made a similar statement, and the RFC Editor is encouraging authors to follow such guidance. Should the IRSG make a statement on this topic for the IRTF stream?
Discussion on the call:
- Are we enforcing or encouraging? The statement will encourage contributors to follow the NIST guidelines.
- We note that there's also a NIST web page, and the web page has terms that aren't quite the same as the NIST technical report - see https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions. The RFC Editor uses this webpage for their style guide.
- Does anyone have concerns about following the IETF policy, which mostly follows the NIST technical report? No concerns raised.
¶ Statement on diversity and inclusivity
Should the IRSG make a broader statement on diversity and inclusivity in IRTF? If so, should this be published as an RFC or as a statement on website? The suggested draft statement was sent to IRSG mailing list.
Discussion on the call
- Marie-Jose – Is "diversity of research ideas" a can of worms? (we want to be open to new ideas, but not all ideas are a suitable basis for IRTF work)
- Melinda - There is a vetting of proposed research groups, so maybe not as scary as it would be without that. Prefer “topics” to “ideas”
- Mallory - your last paragraph should be your first paragraph, but I want to focus on the diversity part (paragraph 3). Are we working to change the imbalance in diversity? “valued and respective, regardless of” is quite passive. The rest of the statement sounds like we're actively working to change things. Mallory will suggest text.
- Laurent - what's "the network"? It's actually the Internet, or something like that “Internet technologies”
- Jane - needs review by IETF legal counsel? Yes.
- How often would this need to be updated? intentionally not very often -> might motivate publishing as an RFC
- How do we ensure that IRTF participants see and read this? Adding to set of NoteWell slides might be the best solution.
- Does the statement cover only RG activities or are there other IRTF activities that would or would not be covered? At a minimum, we have ANRW, and we occasionally publish IRTF-stream RFCs that don't come out of an RG, so needs to apply broadly
- travel grants - provide feedback to IETF, don't be shy about spending funds allocated for this (there’s discussion with Stephanie, who coordinates sponsorship for IETF)
- childcare - not organizing our own nurseries on site, but SIGCOMM offers grants to help pay for this - we could do that, too.
- remote participation - need to think about childcare as well. Not just in-person IRTF activities.
- Carsten - we can "enable participation", and what we do in order to enable participation is likely to change - make this an indirect pointer to "what we're doing now"
No objections to the principle of making such a statement; iterate on the text
Do we need an IRTF-specific template for contribution guidelines for GitHub repos? For background, see discussion thread starting at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irsg/OdEUw6ARa5zoSAGEPWB84vn5q2M
- From Stephen, on email, just before the meeting: No strong opinion, I'd lean towards just seeing what different RGs do for a while more.
- (Spencer) that's an excellent point. What I SHOULD be describing this as, is a possible ("useful"? but we'll see) starting point. I'm pretty sure these will require some customization to reflect differences in RG operation.
Discussion on the call
- Colin suggested just s/IETF/IRTF/g and s/WG/RG/g as a starting point, and seeing what's left that's still wrong.
- Spencer will propose a revised CONTRIBUTING file to let people wordsmith.
Any RG news of interest?
- We're looking for HRPC RG co-chairs
- Dave Oran noted that the ICN conference will be September 22-24
Any lessons to take forward for IETF 112 planning?
- Broad tutorial on satellites (there was an excellent side meeting at IETF 111), but Marie-Jose doesn't want to do that on her own. We're getting more constellations and less research. There is an IETF non-WG mailing list, but it's an IETF list, not focused on research. Not clear what aspects of this are research where IRTF can usefully contribute, what are engineering, and what are places where standards can help. At least a broad refresher would be valuable, to help understand what's in scope, what's out, what's research, what's engineering. Jane offered to help with a satellite meet-up, Mallory and Spencer also interested.