Subject: Weekly curated news stories about IETF-related topics

From: Greg Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:04:32 -0400

Hello,

With the aim of better tracking where, when, and how IETF-related issues are presented in a variety of news outlets and other online publications, we have set up a weekly email to provide a collection of stories published around the world curated by David Goldstein. [1]

Based on positive reactions so far, we are inviting anyone from this list to sign up via:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/newsclips

Archives are openly available and the preface to the first edition from the test period provides a bit more background about the approach:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/newsclips/4py4Y7OPXvJ9MjesGAZEGs8Oe0o/

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Feedback and suggestions are always welcome.

Sincerely,

-Greg

[1] https://goldsteinreport.com/about/

--

Greg Wood
[email-masked]
+1-703-625-3917

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:46:58 +1300

Hi Greg,

Who is fact-checking this?

For example, in the archive I see:

"The HTTP Range Requests standard has been under discussion at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for more than half a decade,..."

There is no such thing as the HTTP Range Requests standard. There is a draft "draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics" that replaced an earlier draft "draft-ietf-httpbis-range". Maybe one day the current draft will proceed through WG Last Call, AD review, IETF Last Call, and an IESG ballot, and finally be approved as a Proposed Standard. Or maybe not.

We constantly have to push back on claims that drafts are IETF standards; it's a bit disturbing when such false claims appear in our own output.

A bit further on I see "互联网工程任务组IETF主席的Brian E.Carpenter教授发表了". No, I can't suddenly read and write Chinese; this was translated with my permission from https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/InterOmnesNovasRete.html .

Apart from fact-checking, I think we need a prominent disclaimer on each edition that this is *not* information from the IETF and that is does *not* express the opinion of the IETF, ISOC, or anyone else in particular.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 12:19:38 +1100

> On 16 Oct 2020, at 11:46 am, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 

Just a nit - range requests were first standardised as part of RFC2068 (1997), then revised in RFC2616 (1999) and split out into a separate RFC7233 (2014); they're currently being folded back into draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics.

All of that said, I agree that the statement "The HTTP Range Requests standard has been under discussion at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for more than half a decade" is very odd - it's more like ~25 years.

Still, this is a news clipping service; if we have problems with the contents of the articles, we need to go back to the sources...

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:01:55 +1300

> Just a nit - range requests were first standardised as part of RFC2068 (1997), then revised in RFC2616 (1999) and split out into a separate RFC7233 (2014); they're currently being folded back into…

Well, that's more than a nit, but I think it strengthens the case for fact checking and for a strong disclaimer. Replicating "news" items that are often nothing more than PR pieces already replicated by lazy journalists could put us in an invidious position.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 03:14:21 -0400

Greg,

Independent of and in addition to the questions and comments
about fact-checking and the importance of being extremely clear
that the collection is not representative of IETF positions or
perspective...

As interesting as I might find this (and I appreciate its being
routed to a separate mailing list with a separate archive), as
someone who would like to keep the direct costs to IETF
participants of participation as low as possible, a few
questions:

(1) With the understanding that I think David is a fine choice,
is he doing this without any direct or indirect compensation
from the IETF?   If he is being compensated, did I miss the
announcement of the RFP?  Given discussions on this list about
COI and other issues, if he is not being compensated
financially, does he have any expectation of receiving benefits
from making it public that the IETF has chosen him to do the
work and would the evolving LLC COI and participation policies
be relevant to that?

(2) More generally, has specific external funding been received
for all of the costs of this effort, costs that include your
time in overseeing it and the resources, however small, needed
to maintain mailing lists and archives ...funding that could not
be put to some other use?

I acknowledge that the costs are probably small and that the LLC
is able to decide to do things like this based on your
collective judgment of what is good for the community or what
the community would like if it were smart enough to ask, but, at
least IMO, it was never the intent when the LLC and the IASA2
structure were created that the LLC should be going around
figuring out interesting things to do, especially things that
have non-zero costs, portions of which may show up on the bottom
line (and hence in registration fees) without active
consultation with the community.  Much the same concern applies
to the questions about accuracy and possible side-effects.   So
this is part of my trying to figure out where and how the LLC
draws the boundaries between what is done because you
(collectively) think is good for the community, versus things
that are good for the company, versus things that, at best, come
from bottom-up community requests and input but at least result
from community consultation. 

I'm concerned that asking questions about specific costs might
sounds like micromanagement but it isn't.  Instead, it is a
question about strategic objectives about what things should be
done (and where initiatives for new efforts should come from)
and not about how, given decisions that they should be done, how
they are managed and funded.

     best,
      john

--On Thursday, October 15, 2020 11:04 -0400 Greg Wood
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> With the aim of better tracking where, when, and how
> IETF-related issues are presented in a variety of news outlets
> and other online publications, we have set up a weekly email
> to provide a collection of stories published around the world
> curated by David Goldstein. [1]
> 
> Archives are openly available and the preface to the first
> edition from the test period provides a bit more background
> about the approach:
>

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:48:06 +1300

Hi John

Yes we are paying for this.  No there was no RFP as David is pretty much unique in this area. The cost is extremely small even with our time factored in and is independent of the number of subscribers so extending its availability to the entire community is the same cost as if we had kept it just for use by the comms team.  The cost is so small that we are well into micromanagement if the community needs to be consulted about a cost of this magnitude.   

Jay

> On 16/10/2020, at 8:14 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Greg,
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:07:51 +0200

> Who is fact-checking this?

Indeed, this has been the crux of all attempts to set up some “reporting” about IETF work.  It is really hard even for the insiders to come up with a reliable description of what is going on; we usually need something like a comment period with multiple pairs of eyes looking.

draft-bormann-core-overview-01.txt is a related attempt (originally for an IEEE comsoc article), and getting it right requires continuous attention from chairs and key players.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 05:49:38 -0400

--On Friday, October 16, 2020 21:48 +1300 Jay Daley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi John
> 
> Yes we are paying for this.  No there was no RFP as David is
> pretty much unique in this area. The cost is extremely small
> even with our time factored in and is independent of the
> number of subscribers so extending its availability to the
> entire community is the same cost as if we had kept it just
> for use by the comms team.  The cost is so small that we are
> well into micromanagement if the community needs to be
> consulted about a cost of this magnitude.   

Jay,

It isn't the cost (although I think I was legitimately curious
about that), it is the principle (actually several of them),
including:

(1) This appears to me to be an expansion of the role and scope
of the LLC, carried out without community consultation, much
less initiated from the community determining that it is needed.
Noting that one can get an unevaluated summary of news items
mentioning the IETf for free from multiple sources, the concern
about expansion of roles of the LLC and the comms team, would be
legitimate even if the comms team decided it needed a curated
news summary for its own internal purposes, but that would at
least not raise the issues under (3) below.

(2) If there are costs involved and/or the work is being done
under a contract with the LLC, I believe that the principle is
that the LLC issues public RFPs and competes the activity.  I
haven't noticed an LLC policy that says that principle does not
apply if contracting or hiring is involved when the amount is
small or what that amount threshold is.  In particular, if a
hypothetical RPP were exposed to the community, I believe (based
on recent comments from others if nothing else) there would be
very strong input that accountability for accuracy and means of
giving feedback per perceived errors or omissions be spelled
out.  And that brings us to...

(3) If this is going to be made publicly available, using an
IETF web site and IETF resources, the issues several others have
raised about accuracy and agreement about what things mean
apply.  Even if disclaimers are present, our publishing one
point of view rather than opening things up to at least, e.g.,
letters to the editor/curator, implies a kind of endorsement.

(4) We could debate whether David is the best person on earth to
do this (perhaps I would agree with you and the LLC that he is)
but he is by no means unique (if you believe he is, I suggest
that is a lack of due diligence).  There are competitors to his
other work (whether the LLC thinks they are better or worse) and
other people working in the general area, some of whom are quite
good.  Whether any of them would be willing is a question whose
answer cannot be determined without asking, and you and Greg,
speaking for and committing the LLC as you have pointed out in
other notes, have apparently chosen to not ask.

(5) I may regret mentioning this, but there is also a potential
overlap here with publications that lie within the scope of the
RFC Series Independent Submissions Editor.   Noting that
summaries of IETF and standardization activities have been
published in the RFC Series in the past, if someone came to the
ISE and suggested periodic publication of a news summary (as an
opinion piece by the person making the suggestion and subject to
editorial review), while I'd predict the ISE would decline the
opportunity for a number of pragmatic reasons, it would not
obviously be out of scope, nor would it be out of scope for the
ISE to recommend to the LLC that it provide a stipend to the
person doing the work (again, without judging what decision
would be made).  To the extent to which we see the independent
submission process as supporting the IETF's standardization
efforts (even or especially when documents are published the
criticize the IETF's work and conclusions), the LLC is pushing
the boundaries of that principle as well.

As I have said to you in another context, the question is not
whether or not the LLC can do things like this, ignoring or
rejecting some or all of the principles above because we agree
that it can.  Whether it is wise, appropriate, or the best way
to serve the IETF and its objectives is another matter.

YMMD and probably will.
    john

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 12:36:35 +0000

If only to counter-act John's comments: I think this is a good thing to do and I don't see a clipping service as growing the mandate.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:25:00 -0400

> We constantly have to push back on claims that drafts are IETF standards; it's a bit disturbing when such false claims appear in our own output.

Or maybe it's useful for IETF participants to have more exposure to how 
we're (mis-) reported in the media?

Still, a disclaimer does seem appropriate.

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 08:44:15 +1300

John,

On 16-Oct-20 22:49, John C Klensin wrote:
> of the LLC, 

Respectfully disagree. RFC 8711 explicitly mentions "support outreach and communications"
under "Executive Director and Staff Responsibilities". Previously I would have expected something like this to be done by ISOC, but itsm that we intentionally changed that.

Regards
   Brian

> carried out without community consultation, much

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:02:36 -0400

Brian,

Mumble.  Point conceded.  Thanks.
   john

--On Saturday, October 17, 2020 08:44 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> (1) This appears to me to be an expansion of the role and
>> scope of the LLC, 
> 
> Respectfully disagree. RFC 8711 explicitly mentions "support
> outreach and communications" under "Executive Director and
> Staff Responsibilities". Previously I would have expected
> something like this to be done by ISOC, but itsm that we
> intentionally changed that.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
>> less initiated from the community determining that it is
>> needed. Noting that one can get an unevaluated summary of
>> news items mentioning the IETf for free from multiple
>> sources, the concern about expansion of roles of the LLC and
>> the comms team, would be legitimate even if the comms team
>> decided it needed a curated news summary for its own internal
>> purposes, but that would at least not raise the issues under
>> (3) below.
>> 
>> haven't noticed an LLC policy that says that principle does
>> not apply if contracting or hiring is involved when the
>> amount is small or what that amount threshold is.  In
>> particular, if a hypothetical RPP were exposed to the
>> community, I believe (based on recent comments from others if
>> nothing else) there would be very strong input that
>> accountability for accuracy and means of giving feedback per
>> perceived errors or omissions be spelled out.  And that
>> brings us to...
>> 
>> IETF web site and IETF resources, the issues several others
>> have raised about accuracy and agreement about what things
>> mean apply.  Even if disclaimers are present, our publishing
>> one point of view rather than opening things up to at least,
>> e.g., letters to the editor/curator, implies a kind of
>> endorsement.
>> 
>> (4) We could debate whether David is the best person on earth
>> to do this (perhaps I would agree with you and the LLC that
>> he is) but he is by no means unique (if you believe he is, I
>> suggest that is a lack of due diligence).  There are
>> competitors to his other work (whether the LLC thinks they
>> are better or worse) and other people working in the general
>> area, some of whom are quite good.  Whether any of them would
>> be willing is a question whose answer cannot be determined
>> without asking, and you and Greg, speaking for and committing
>> the LLC as you have pointed out in other notes, have
>> apparently chosen to not ask.
>> 
>> (5) I may regret mentioning this, but there is also a
>> potential overlap here with publications that lie within the
>> scope of the RFC Series Independent Submissions Editor.
>> Noting that summaries of IETF and standardization activities
>> have been published in the RFC Series in the past, if someone
>> came to the ISE and suggested periodic publication of a news
>> summary (as an opinion piece by the person making the
>> suggestion and subject to editorial review), while I'd
>> predict the ISE would decline the opportunity for a number of
>> pragmatic reasons, it would not obviously be out of scope,
>> nor would it be out of scope for the ISE to recommend to the
>> LLC that it provide a stipend to the person doing the work
>> (again, without judging what decision would be made).  To the
>> extent to which we see the independent submission process as
>> supporting the IETF's standardization efforts (even or
>> especially when documents are published the criticize the
>> IETF's work and conclusions), the LLC is pushing the
>> boundaries of that principle as well.
>>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:54:21 -0700

> On Oct 16, 2020, at 11:25 AM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Or maybe it's useful for IETF participants to have more exposure to how we're (mis-) reported in the media?
> 

I agree on both points.

Bob

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:19:59 -0400

> Who is fact-checking this?

I read through the first message of the archive.
I'm concerned about the SEO impact of having this content in our archives.
The article are out there, we might as well know about what is being said.

Once subscribe to the list, we are allowed to post clarifications as
followup?   I don't know how else we can deal except by more speech.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:41:46 -0700

how about a "letters to the editors" list for people to cc when writing to
the editor/author/reporter of the news articles quoted. (They all seem to
have a link to the original article, maybe their twitter handle?)

Add posts on @ietf or mentioning #IETF?

-- 
--
https://LarryMasinter.net <http://larry.masinter.net>

---

From: Greg Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 07:16:37 -0400

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback.

Going forward, there will be a notice at the top of each update that the clips to clarify that they do not represent the view of the IETF and that they are not checked for factual accuracy.

We’ll investigate whether any SEO implications related to the archives may need addressing as well.

I need to consider more carefully how best to follow up on stories that inaccurately portray the IETF, but for the moment feel free to send me an email directly.

Thanks,

-Greg

> On Oct 15, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Greg Wood <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 

--

Greg Wood
[email-masked]
+1-703-625-3917