POISED '95 BOF (POISED95) Reported by Paul Mockapetris/Information Sciences Institute Three sessions of the POISED '95 BOF were held at the IETF in Danvers. The Monday session, chaired by Paul Mockapetris, sought to create a list of issues. The Tuesday session, chaired by Carl Malamud, was limited to non-IPR issues, but in fact concentrated on the NOMCOM and its procedures. The Wednesday session, chaired by John Curran, concentrated on the reform of RFC 1602 regarding Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) such as patents, copyrights, etc. The object was to create new procedures which would replace the enduring fun occasioned by the Sun RPC/XDR episode. ISOC/IETF Relationship Most felt that the ISOC is the only choice at the moment to execute legal agreements, but most agreed that progress on these issues was too slow and RFC 1602 is broken. The Wednesday session on RFC 1602 intellectual property rights will address this. The insurance coverage is still uncertain, the aggregate coverage is about one million dollars, and as of the meeting, covers the ISOC Board of Trustees, IESG, but not the working group chairs, widely seen as involved in progressing standards. The ISOC is progressing the issue. At least one person is concerned that the ISOC is competing for research grants and may come into conflict with certain IETF members seeking the same grants. At present no conflict exists, and most of the meeting participants felt that this was not an issue. The ISOC has proposed support of IETF, and the amount of 250 thousand dollars has been mentioned, but no funds are available to the IESG, Secretariat, or IETF. The ISOC Board of Trustees may act. A partial dream list for spending such funds is: expenses related to startup of the ``hostless IETF'' meeting scheme, legal advice for the IESG/IETF (ISOC did fund legal talent at the BOF), funds to create standards tracking systems, professional editing help, and development of technology to support multimedia (i.e., non-ASCII text) standards. A lot of suggestions started to emerge about the use of the Web, but this was ruled out of order for POISED. The ISOC, through the IAB, sponsors and will create new groups that are not open, but are self-selecting. Some feel this is appropriate, some not. Most did feel that if the IETF is held to a standard, so should other groups. Ownership of the IETF, the address space, etc., seems to be a continuing issue. Funding Models There is a general request for information about the IETF and Secretariat financing. In the future, some feel that integrated funding for the IANA, IESG, InterNIC, etc., is desirable. There are various opinions about how this should happen. One prominent question was non-US support. Some feel that financial support will not be forthcoming until an acceptable framework, including reporting and control to some degree, is set up. Others say that until there is money on the table, why set up the framework? A bit of a chicken and egg problem? Suggestions for POISED '95 IPR The discussion regarding the repairs necessary to RFC 1602 to deal with intellectual property rights highlighted several issues: A single cookie-cutter agreement, particularly one that was as unfavorable to the technology donors as the current RFC 1602, is unworkable. In particular, no business is seen as willing to warrant that all technology is free of patent problems, especially since such problems may be unknown at the time the technology is donated. It is clear that we need some combination of: o Model agreements for a company that wants to hand over ownership of a technology to the IETF. The Sun RPC/XDR agreement may be a good start here. In general, this can be both good for the IETF, because it acquires a useful technology, and for the company, since it will presumably sees its investment and leadership in the donated technology rewarded in the marketplace. o A simpler agreement whereby the holder of a patent does not give it over to the IETF (i.e., change control), but agrees that the IETF can use the technology to implement some larger goal. o Somebody empowered to negotiate variants. The general idea seemed to be that as we built up a history of agreements, any new agreement could follow precedent, but where precedent was lacking, someone had to be empowered to negotiate. Clearly, the desirability of the technology, availability of alternatives, etc., would have to be taken into account. There was a vigorous debate about whether licensing fees were appropriate, and what form they should take. However, a strong preference for unencumbered technology should become a stated objective of the IETF. o The question of who is party to the agreement was discussed. Some feel that unilateral grants would be an effective mechanism, but others noted that somebody would still have to take the responsibility for deciding whether the terms of a unilateral grant were acceptable when it did not follow a clear precedent. (There is some subsequent work from the IAB/IESG to develop an ``escape clause'' procedure, or a ``procedure for variation negotiation.'') Possible Improvements To The Standards Process Several people believe that once an Internet-Draft or other matter enters into the hands of the RFC Editor, InterNIC, regional registry, IANA, IESG, or IETF Secretariat, it can be difficult for an ``outsider'' to determine where it sits, and who has the responsibility for ``progressing'' the matter. The chair mentioned that the Secretariat was working on developing a Web-accessible tracking system for IETF documents, that would provide such tracking for IETF documents. The other processes are probably beyond the control of POISED. Openness in the actions of the IETF, IESG, InterNIC, are seen as essential. There seems to be a need to create a new type of standard, which some call a ``policy'' standard. This would be used for things like the RFC 1602 follow-on, address allocation procedures, etc. Opinions differed on the best way to proceed. IETF Meeting Site Selection and Criteria What are the criteria for an IETF site, and how should sites be selected? As the IETF has grown, the difficulty of getting meeting sponsors has increased. Various estimates suggest that Sun and FTP Software spent 50-75 thousand dollars or more on the most recent IETF meeting for the terminal rooms, MBONE support, etc. The effort and hassle are also daunting. As a result, future IETF meetings may be ``hostless,'' with meeting fees going up to cover the expense of hiring the terminal room, etc., out. This is seen as acceptable, and will probably happen in 1996. The criteria for a meeting site were seen as: o A state of the art terminal room (X-terms, appletalk, Ethernet) o MBONE coverage for multiple parallel sessions o Capability to house about 1000 participants nearby (not bussed) o A reasonable airport nearby Minority opinions included requirements that meetings be scheduled two years in advance, that the spread of laptops meant a declining need for X-terminals and the like, and that geographical diversity should be given more weight. The current Secretariat was seen as doing a good job, but there is always a possibility for improvement. NOMCOM There is a general need to finish formulating the NOMCOM procedures. Several NOMCOM members and even past chairs felt that better guidelines would be welcome. One issue is ``tailoring'' the NOMCOM membership. It was observed that the membership of the three NOMCOMs seemed to be fugitives from the law of averages. This is due to the small ``gene pool'' of volunteers. It was recommended that the IETF Chair and the IETF in general attempt to broaden the gene pool by aggressive attempts to get people to volunteer. Another method of tailoring is to prohibit participation by candidates for office, sitting members of the IAB/IESG, members of the prior NOMCOM, or various other criteria. There was also debate about whether nominations, candidacy, etc., should be kept secret or not during the NOMCOM process, and who should announce results. Consistency is not a hallmark of past NOMCOMs. Other One participant mused for the good old days when the IESG was a tight-knit team, and believed that the present IESG was not this Camelot. More cynical types discussed the tradeoffs between IESG as Borg vs. IESG as a bunch of Dirty Harrietts/Harrys. The truth is probably somewhere in between.