Subject: [dispatch] Topics for DISPATCH @ IETF-104

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:59:09 -0600

Hi all,

The wiki has been updated with the topics that have been agreed to be
discussed at IETF-104:  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dispatch/wiki/WikiStart

The proposal for moving forward draft-dold-payto is still being discussed
amongst ADS/chairs as is the JSON Canonicalization that had been proposed
as a BoF in the SEC Area, but was not approved.

We will post any updates to the wiki and will post an agenda shortly.

As a reminder, if you are submitting drafts for discussion in the dispatch
working group following the standard convention of including the WG name in
the draft name (i.e., draft-<name>-dispatch-blah-blah)  makes it *much*
easier for me as chair to make sure I have the right documents identified
on the wiki and on the agenda.   The tool will allow you to indicate that
the document with the new name replaces the document with the old name if
that's a concern.

Regards,
Mary
DISPATCH WG co-chair

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:13:17 -0500

Hi all,

We have uploaded a preliminary agenda for DISPATCH:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials/

Regards,
Mary.
DISPATCH WG co-chair

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM
Subject: Topics for DISPATCH @ IETF-104
To: DISPATCH <[email-masked]>
Cc: ART ADs <[email-masked]>, dispatch chairs <[email-masked]>

Hi all,

Regards,
Mary
DISPATCH WG co-chair

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 05:16:37 +0000

Hello everybody,

> We have uploaded a preliminary agenda for DISPATCH:

Thanks for putting this together.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials/

This may be just an oversight, but in general, I very much prefer to 
have the agenda (and other, similarly short stuff) inline in my inbox. 
That saves me (and everybody else) a click (or two, plus some on-page 
search time, this time). Of course it can change later, but we all know 
that.

The actual agenda is at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/agenda-104-dispatch-00. 
In the future, precise links would be appreciated.

The agenda currently reads as follows:

# Draft Agenda Dispatch @IETF-104 - v1

DISPATCH Meeting
-------------------

# Status and agenda bash - Chairs (10 min)

# Relay User Machine (RUM) - Brian Rosen (20 min)

# JSON Contact - Bron Gondwana (20 min)

# Web Packaging - Jeffrey Yasskin (20 min)

Note: see DISPATCH wiki for additional links to materials

ART AREA Meeting
-------------------

# Bofs and meetings of interest - ADs (5 min)

# JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS) - Anders Rundgren (20)
   Document: draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme

# AOB

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:35:18 -0400

I agree with Martin. I don't know how to find these documents. Where is the wiki?

The URL is the answer.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, at 16:16, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:06:49 -0500

DISPATCH wiki is here and was posted in earlier email messages:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dispatch/wiki
Every WG has such a wiki although few use it.

It would be super easy to find the documents if authors would actually
follow the recommendation and include -dispatch in the document name.  It's
not clear to me why folks can't seem to follow that.  You can find links to
relevant documents in the threads posted on the wiki.

We actually haven't routinely sent an email when we've uploaded the
agenda.   I think I'll not bother doing that next time since I assume
everyone knows how to find meeting materials and knows how to click links
to find WG agendas.

Regards,
Mary.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:35 PM Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > > discussed at IETF-104:
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dispatch/wiki/WikiStart
> > >

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 02:56:05 +0000

Hello Mary,

> Every WG has such a wiki although few use it.

Yes indeed. In my more than 25 years of IETF involvement (on and off), 
it's probably the first time I have looked at such a wiki. If other WGs 
don't use it, it's difficult to get the hang of it.

Also, if you think the wiki is important, it would be good to add a link 
to the agenda. Currently, the wiki only shows which drafts are up, but 
not timing or presenters.

And it's not really about me or the other Martin, it's also about newcomers.

> everyone knows how to find meeting materials and knows how to click links

First, I don't think everybody does know all these details. And even if 
they know, it's quite a few clicks.

But what's much more important is that if you don't announce that the WG 
agenda is up, nobody except you knows when to go and check out the 
agenda. I think people have better ways to spend their time than 
checking every day whether the agenda is up.

Sending things such as the agenda (or at least an 'agenda is up, it's 
here' signal) to the mailing list can also be seen as part of the 
principle that all WG decisions are confirmed on the mailing list.

Regards,   Martin.

>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/agenda-104-dispatch-00..
>>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:30:30 -0500

Responses below [MB]

> don't use it, it's difficult to get the hang of it.
[MB] Well, we've been using it in dispatch for 10 years and anytime I
mention deadlines, etc., I always point to the wiki.   You can google IETF
and wiki and see many.  And, if you're not aware there is also an IETF
meeting wiki for each meeting. So, I'm surprised actually that experienced
people don't know about wikis.  [/MB]

> not timing or presenters.
[MB] I added it just after I sent the email yesterday. And, the agenda
shows the timing, so I'm not sure the concern. [/MB]

> And it's not really about me or the other Martin, it's also about

[MB] Given as you note below that work happens on the mailing list, I would
expect newcomers interested in the WG to have at least browsed the mailing
list archives. The email about the topics shows up nicely on the first
screen whenlooking at the archives. [/MB]

> they know, it's quite a few clicks.

[MB] Honestly, since the website update, I can't find a single thing
without oodles of clicks.  IF I don't have something book marked, I find it
far easier to just google to find that right page - the new IETF homepage
might be pretty for the world, but it doesn't facilitate finding stuff for
those of us doing the work. [/MB]

> principle that all WG decisions are confirmed on the mailing list.
[MB] And, that I did. The fact that one of your complaints is that you had
to scroll and then click is the thing I find a little strange.  Usually
before a meeting I go to the exact page I pointed you too, and pull down
materials for each of the WGs I'm attending, so I never imagined that
posting that link would be deemed a terrible inconvenience.   I followed
the format for agenda that Murray had been using since he became a co-chair
- zero complaints ever that we didn't post an agenda nor about the format.
I thought the links in the wiki for the discussion, which has links to the
documents was far more useful.  IN particular, DISPATCH isn't about
reviewing a single document. It's about discussing topics and deciding if
there's a problem there that we think needs to be solved and review a
proposal on how to do that, which might or might not have a related draft
or charter.

I only posted the note about the agenda  as a courtesy because we didn't
have it fully settled by the time I updated the wiki and posted that
email.   You might want to bring up this point to other WG chairs as I've
only seen one other WG post an agenda for this meeting (that was actually
TSV Area I think).  Of course, only 7 of 15 WGs have posted agendas at this
time although a couple aren't meeting.  If posting the content of agendas
on the list is deemed a requirement in following our process, someone
should probably add that to the WG chairs wiki.

I used to do beautiful agendas with all the hyperlinks, etc. and not a
single time did anyone ever say thanks for theoretically making their job
easier. Of course, that's the IETF way - never thank someone for doing
something, but always complain if they've done something you deem wrong.
So, hopefully this thread provides a nice introduction for newcomers on how
we interact in IETF as a whole.  [/MB]

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:00:34 -0600

I’m reading this on a plane and don’t have access to the WIKI, and 10 years from now when I am trying to find prior are for a patent trial, all the content of the Wiki will not be archived. 

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 4:35 PM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:18:15 -0500

So, where do you propose we store all this information for archival?

This really comes down to an earlier discussion on one of the other general
lists that a lot of history is lost.  That wiki is the history of what
happened to all the work items since we started DISPATCH.  Yes, we have
minutes, etc. but that doesn't give you the complete picture as a lot of
things happen actually NOT on public lists - e.g., the AD sponsored
documents go off and discussions are between AD and authors, when WGs are
chartered, there's a lot of out of band discussion, etc.   Do you propose
that all those discussions happen on the mailing list for archival?

Can we add a page to the datatracker for each WG so that we can store
information like this?   The only other thing I can think of is that we
just post it periodically on the mailing list if you want guaranteed
archival.

Regards,
Mary.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:00 AM Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> I’m reading this on a plane and don’t have access to the WIKI, and 10
> years from now when I am trying to find prior are for a patent trial, all
> the content of the Wiki will not be archived.
>
>

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:44:29 -0400

Cullen's points are valid here, but I was making a simple request for courtesy and respect.

If the critical information is in an email, it is more readily available.  That's a tiny bit more work to provide, but a great help to people looking to prepare for the meeting.  The TLS agenda, for example, was very helpful.

For instance, I had real trouble finding Bron's post until I went to the wiki.  I started to look for a draft, draft-gondwana-*, draft-*-jmap-*, draft-jenkins-*, no luck. I searched my mail for emails, I got none because the email had a misspelled title, and the journey to find the wiki on a phone is distressingly long and the site agonizingly slow.  The direct link, once I had it, was fine, of course.

None of this is terribly hard to deal with, but it's a bit of burden.  It's possible that it is harder for me because I have inbuilt expectations about how people present their ideas.

I wonder if there is a tools enhancement we might have: the ability to build an agenda based on drafts (and uploaded slides).  Manually building all that stuff only takes 10 minutes, but I'll bet that it could be cut down to 2 minutes for most groups, and produce a more usable product.

--Martin

p.s., I don't think anyone was asking you not to use the wiki.  Though Cullen is right that all the stuff that happens out of sight without a good record is not good.

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, at 02:18, Mary Barnes wrote:
> This really comes down to an earlier discussion on one of the other 
> general lists that a lot of history is lost. That wiki is the history 
> of what happened to all the work items since we started DISPATCH. Yes, 
> we have minutes, etc. but that doesn't give you the complete picture as 
> a lot of things happen actually NOT on public lists - e.g., the AD 
> sponsored documents go off and discussions are between AD and authors, 
> when WGs are chartered, there's a lot of out of band discussion, etc. 
> Do you propose that all those discussions happen on the mailing list 
> for archival? 
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:14:59 -0500

I'm not debating some of your points, which are very good when it comes to
building an agenda.   If I post the agenda ahead of time, next time I will
include a link to the wiki and just cut and paste from there into the body
of the email.  While your time estimate on the agenda is probably about
right, it takes me much longer than that to go dig up threads and figure
out what documents we are talking about and make sure I'm not missing
anything.   And, I have the same problem finding drafts, as well, which is
why I'm suggesting the -dispatch so they'll easily show up on the WG page -
that lets me double check I haven't missed anything.  Per discussion
yesterday, it's not clear that the contributors/authors can indicate
replaces for their own drafts. That may be a chair only option?   In which
case, I think there is the need for a tool enhancement.   And the same with
having the ability to have a wiki in the datatracker as opposed to tools
page.

The latter brings up another question for Cullen as to whether earlier
versions of drafts that have never been adopted, and thus fall out of the
datatracker when they expire, are relevant?  I would think absolutely so as
they document prior art.  But, I honestly don't know the official status of
the tools pages when it comes to the legal aspects. So, that is a general
question - if we answer it for the drafts, then it should equally apply to
the wiki.

As an aside, the datatracker does point to the Tools page for each WG and
once there, it's one click to get to a wiki.  So, I don't think it's super
hidden.

And, of course, this whole discussion is more general.  Per my email
yesterday it gets into tracking/documenting history in general, which also
relates to Cullen's point.   Although, it's a very curious one to be having
in the DISPATCH WG since it's been around for 10 years.

Regards,
Mary.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:44 AM Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If the critical information is in an email, it is more readily available.
> That's a tiny bit more work to provide, but a great help to people looking
> to prepare for the meeting.  The TLS agenda, for example, was very helpful.
>
> For instance, I had real trouble finding Bron's post until I went to the
> wiki.  I started to look for a draft, draft-gondwana-*, draft-*-jmap-*,
> draft-jenkins-*, no luck. I searched my mail for emails, I got none because
> the email had a misspelled title, and the journey to find the wiki on a
> phone is distressingly long and the site agonizingly slow.  The direct
> link, once I had it, was fine, of course.
>
> None of this is terribly hard to deal with, but it's a bit of burden.
> It's possible that it is harder for me because I have inbuilt expectations
> about how people present their ideas.
>
> I wonder if there is a tools enhancement we might have: the ability to
> build an agenda based on drafts (and uploaded slides).  Manually building
> all that stuff only takes 10 minutes, but I'll bet that it could be cut
> down to 2 minutes for most groups, and produce a more usable product.
>
> --Martin
>
> p.s., I don't think anyone was asking you not to use the wiki.  Though
> Cullen is right that all the stuff that happens out of sight without a good
> record is not good.
>

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:10:37 +0100

Speaking as out-going AD and incoming-co-chair who was on vacation when all the agenda stuff needed to happen:

(First, I am not picking on Martin’s comments; it just seemed like a good point to jump into the conversation.)

Mary had to deal with the agenda by herself (as in no co-chair and very little AD support) for this meeting. That left very little time for making changes or optimizations to the way we have historically presented these things. I am probably more to blame for that than anyone, for the reasons in my opening line to this email.

DISPATCH holds a special place as the working group that most new ART participants will experience first. I fully agree that we need to work on making things easier for new participants, without making it tedious for old-hands. There are some obvious things we can do based on the discussion so far, and there may be room for other innovations and experiments moving forward.

I propose that for now we focus on getting through the agenda we have for Monday and the related discussion topics, then afterwards continue a discussion to get input on what would work best for people going forward. That way we can have that discussion without the pressure of a meeting only 2 days away.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Mar 21, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 07:17:21 -0400

> For instance, I had real trouble finding Bron's post until I went to the wiki. I started to look for a draft, draft-gondwana-*, draft-*-jmap-*, draft-jenkins-*, no luck. I searched my mail for emai…

Apologies for this! Obviously any time wasted by people trying to find information is disappointing. Of course it was Robert's name on the draft even though he's not going to be able to be here in person.

For those still looking, it's here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stepanek-jscontact/

Cheers,

Bron.

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd
 [email-masked]