Subject: [babel] Babel BoF: fixing an agenda

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:04:40 +0100

Dear all,

I think it's time we start thinking about an agenda for the Babel BoF.
The following people have volunteered to make presentations:

  - Juliusz Chroboczek (general presentation and what needs to be done);

  - Toke Høiland-Jørgensen (implementation issues, in collaboration with
    Markus Stenberg);

  - Denis Ovsienko (security issues).

(Toke and myself are pretty sure to come, Denis and Markus aren't yet.)

What do people think about the three points above?  Is there anything
important that's missing?  Is there anyone else who'd like to volunteer to
do a presentation?

Thanks,

-- Juliusz

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:05:27 +0000

On 2/16/16, 8:04 AM, "babel on behalf of Juliusz Chroboczek"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Juliusz:

Hi!

>important that's missing?  Is there anyone else who'd like to volunteer to

Quoting from the BoF proposal [1] (as is now):  "The goal of this BoF is
to discuss the value and scope of the work required to create a standards
track successor to RFCs 6126 and 7557, including discussing what technical
topics need attention as part of advancement. The BoF will also discuss
the applicability of Babel, in preparation for the working group producing
a suitable applicability statement. The working group, when formed, will
be responsible for evaluating the costs and benefits of changes to the
existing work on Babel, as well as developing suitable security
mechanisms."

It looks like you may have "discuss the value and scope of the work
required" covered in your presentation.  I'm not sure if that includes
"discussing what technical topics need attention as part of advancement".

The "applicability of Babel" is not reflected in the agenda.  BTW, "the
working group producing a suitable applicability statement" is probably a
good output, but the requirements to be satisfied by the successor
documents should be clear.  IOW, I would really like to see a discussion
of deployments and their characteristics (which may contribute to the
"technical topics (that) need attention" part above).

Knowing what the WG will be doing is important.  Probably more important
is having people willing to work (write documents, review them, comment,
implement, etc.).  One of the questions the BoF Chairs will ask is: "who
is going to do the work?" -- a hum or show of hands at the BoF in Buenos
Aires is one way to "see" interest.  There is also the possibility to
participate remotely, so not everyone has to be in the room.
Participation on the list is another.

It concerns me that the participation on the list has been so low [2].
50% of the messages posted to the list come from 2 people!  With this
message, the ADs will now have contributed about 10% of the rest!  I know
that number of messages are not the best indicator of anything -- the
point is that we would love to see more people making comments (even
volunteering to make presentations, for example) *on list*.  It would also
be ideal to have a little but more diversity in the draft authors going
forward.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#Routing
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=babel

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:19:10 +0100

> "discussing what technical topics need attention as part of advancement".

Noted.

> "technical topics (that) need attention" part above).

Have you had a chance to look at draft-chroboczek-babel-applicability-00,
which I published yesterday?  I'd be grateful for feedback on this document,
since I'm not entirely clear what's expected from an applicability statement.

> It would also be ideal to have a little but more diversity in the draft
> authors going forward.

Why is that?  Is the success of a WG judged by the quality of the
specifications produced, or by how many people shared the experience?

Alvaro, I'd be glad to see people volunteer to author or co-author
documents.  However, I have no intention to go soliciting co-authors when
I'd much rather be spending my time writing specifications and code.

-- Juliusz

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:46:37 +0000

On 2/16/16, 10:19 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

...
>since I'm not entirely clear what's expected from an applicability

No, I haven't.

The way I see it (which shouldn't be taken as the final word) is that an
applicability statement would tell us (in this case) when and how to use
Babel.  Maybe there are specific features or a recommended configuration
for a specific deployment (mesh networks, or homenet, or...).  I don't
think you have to produce one document per case, unless the application
and deployment model are so different that it warrants that.

As an example, take a look at the "ROLL Applicability Statement Template".
 Just an example...

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template

>I'd much rather be spending my time writing specifications and code.

I agree with you.  The ideal would in fact be to see other people
volunteer -- it reflects the interest and willingness of people to work.

To be clear: I have to reason to doubt your ability.  However, we're
talking about forming a WG -- where ideally the group would work on all
parts (write, review, implement, etc.).

Alvaro.

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:54:45 +0100

>> which I published yesterday?

> No, I haven't.

Alvaro, it's 1.5 pages.  It will take you 40 seconds to scan over that
document.

> I don't think you have to produce one document per case

Thank goodness.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:56:43 +0100

> volunteer -- it reflects the interest and willingness of people to

Well I'm certainly interested and planning to participate. In case that
wasn't clear from me being on the proposed BoF agenda ;)

-Toke

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:26:39 +0000

Hi,

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 15:19, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

As a reminder of rfc5434, the general guidelines for a BoF to form a
WG that has a high chance to be successful are:

      - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
        group to attempt solving it.

Check.

      - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
        problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).

Not clear, yet.

      - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
        is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
        what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.

Not wholly. Getting there.

      - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
        proposed documents) are the right set.

Not yet defined. 

      - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
        having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
        charter in a timely fashion).

This is generally where having more people involved helps.

> I'd much rather be spending my time writing specifications and code.

Well, you are the main dynamo of the proposed WG :)

Tim

> 
> -- Juliusz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel

---

From: Gabriel Kerneis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:30:30 +0100

> volunteer -- it reflects the interest and willingness of people to work.

I have been a silent reader so far, but I am in fact very interested in
seeing babel move forward. I've reviewed most (all?) existing Babel-related
IETF drafts, and I firmly intend to keep doing so. For those of you who do
not know me, I am maintain the Babel package in openwrt, as well as the
babelweb visualization tool. I also had a secret plan to implement RFC 7298
for the reference implementation, but that plan failed miserably when I
realized a typical day is only 24 hours long.

I will very likely not be able to attend IETF meetings in person (unless
one happens in Paris — which a rough interpolation predicts around IETF
103). But I would be very happy to discuss drafts, and even help with
authoring or experimenting if necessary, over this mailing-list. The main
reason I have not said anything so far is that it is still a bit unclear to
me how exactly to contribute effectively, since I am not very familiar with
the expectations of a IETF WG. A list of actions items would definitely
help, and I am glad to see that people who understand more than I do seem
to be making progress on that front.

Best,
Gabriel

---

From: Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:51:36 +0200

On 19.2.2016, at 14.30, Gabriel Kerneis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I have been a silent reader so far, but I am in fact very interested in seeing babel move forward. I've reviewed most (all?) existing Babel-related IETF drafts, and I firmly intend to keep doing so. For those of you who do not know me, I am maintain the Babel package in openwrt, as well as the babelweb visualization tool. I also had a secret plan to implement RFC 7298 for the reference implementation, but that plan failed miserably when I realized a typical day is only 24 hours long.  

+1 from me as well.

I am mostly avid reader as well, although I have been known to hack Python ([1]) during IETFs. I am not actually personally 100% convinced of the need for the WG, given the specs _seem_ readable enough to me anyway already, but if people consider e.g. experimental -> standard track work worth doing, I can at least offer to review the work if nothing else.

Unless IETF shows up in Helsinki, I am not sure of my future live participation though; my third stint at being active in IETF is drawing to a close I think :) (DNCP+HNCP are finally ‘almost done’.)

Cheers,

-Markus

[1] https://github.com/fingon/pybabel

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:38:39 +0000

On 2/19/16, 7:30 AM, "Gabriel Kerneis" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Gabriel:

Hi!

But I would be very happy to discuss drafts, and even help with authoring or experimenting if necessary, over this mailing-list. The main reason I have not said anything so far is that it is still a bit unclear to me how exactly to contribute effectively, since I am not very familiar with the expectations of a IETF WG.

You got the essence above: discuss, comment, ask questions, publish drafts...all on the mailing list.  Most of the work for any IETF mailing list is done on the list - even though we have in-person meetings (3/year), all important decisions should be confirmed on the list.

It is not a requirement to attend the in-person meetings, or even for the WG to meet then, and there are very good tools to participate remotely.

It is important to "see" people at this stage of the process (potential formation) because we want a group of people to work on whatever the WG is chartered with.  Again, participation on the list, publication of documents, participation on the meetings (even if remote), etc. are all ways to show interest and willingness to work.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:58:14 +0100

Sorry to follow up on myself.

I haven't yet received feedback from the ADs on either the wiki entry for
the BoF or the applicability statement.  I've updated the wiki entry with
a preliminary agenda, let's see how it goes.

I'm not a security person; while I can do a quick presentation on the
security of Babel, it would be better if somebody competent volunteered.

-- Juliusz