1. IAB Town Hall AKA Making the best use of everyone’s time for the next “n” minutes where: 60 > n > -20 Ed Juskevici _ us (no “o” in surname)

2. Page 2 Goals for the next “n” minutes Try a slightly different approach vs. usual: Get someone other than the IAB chair to moderate the session Enable Leslie to fully participate in the discussion (vs. dividing her attention between moderating, timekeeping, thinking … ) Discover at least one fresh thought or new idea Let’s not just rehash the “same old” again Have everyone leave tonight’s session with a broader perspective than coming in

3. Page 3 Desired Outcomes Start at least one new discussion which will continue after we leave Paris - Of course, more than one new thread would be better Have at least one person come away with an idea for a new activity or new investigation … - Again, more would be better Get at least 10 people up to the microphones - And hear their thoughts too Close gracefully before the lights go off (~19h30)

4. Page 4 Groundrules DO be succinct (2 minutes or less) … This is a case where “less is better” This goes for people at the microphones, and True for IAB members too DON’T by shy … DO get to a microphone DON’T rehash old ideas … Let’s park debate on ideas that have already been raised more than once tonight

5. Page 5 Discussion Primers (if needed) The ‘big’ interconnect – VoIP and IP services What do we need to be thinking about (beyond the obvious) ? End-to-end and KISS principle … How are we doing? Concerns about NAT-alikes popping up with session border controllers ?

6. Page 6 Take-Aways (1) How about focusing on the end-user experience? Solve user-related out-of-the box zeroconf? How much do we have to design the upper layers in ensuring everything will run on IP? There are multiple sources of config info, hard to discern what/why something breaks What should we have put into SIP to make a VoIP phone easier to configure? The easiest parameter to configure is the one you don’t have to. Why not seek simplicity from the outset? Special cases for addressing, authentication, (other knobs) do not help Rather than “use-cases” …how about “user-cases” ? PCs are getting to the point where only my kids can configure them People who design the end-user experience are not here (at IETF) How about adding a new section to all future RFCs … on “User Experience” W3C had a team which focussed on schemas … produced a primer on how to do it (simple) … Enroll … we have a WG which not enough people are attending Mandatory sections are evil

7. Page 7 Take-Aways (2) Protocol Models: Very valuable new RFC4101 How about putting some effort into disseminating the contents of that RFC to the community (e.g. at Sunday tutorials) ? Complexity dealt with in RFC3439 Concern about the growing complexity and total number of protocols out there. IAB and IESG have been thinking/worrying about this for >10 years Lots of effort for configuring some devices (e.g. PCs) is to deal with non-standard complexities Should we invite a report from NANOG during IETF on “the TOP 10 things we are really upset about” ?

8. Page 8 Take-Aways (3) Layer Creep / Stack Creep: Concern that some functions are being reinvented in different layers We have TCP and UDP … why not just one? We promulgate multiple solutions (let many flowers bloom) … would it help to change this? Maybe we are spending too much time on layers 8-10 Of course, there is lots going on at other layers which are beyond the IETF’s scope (i.e. domain of other standards bodies) (Protocol lipo suction ? Or full-blown surgery …) Infinite tunneling vs. shorter torso/waist height (remove vertebrae)

9. Page 9 Take-Aways (4) User experience and NATs -How many of us help our relatives with their computers? -… TOO MANY … we are failing ! -… or the scope of people’s expectations and universe is expanding … which complicates things -We have no reasonable way for people to manage “walls” … our relatives need managed devices, enabled by reasonable signaling protocols -Do we need an AETF ? (Applic’ns Eng’g TF) ? -Subscription-based protocols ? Is the internet no-longer end-to-end? -There are many sloppy implementations out there … maybe a lot of what we leave as user-configurable parameters should be hard coded -Put some layers on a diet? The entire community would need to pull together to make this happen (i.e. recover some of the simplicity we used to have).

10. Page 10 Take-Aways (5) Message Architecture: -Do we need it to use a single protocol at this stage of development? -For IM or mail, we used a single protocol for a long time to transport store and forward messages …

11. Page 11 Take-Aways (6) Features vs. complexity – hard to “add” simplicity - normal cycle is design, then simplify - imposing the above would run a risk of slowing our process(es)

12. Page 12 Take-Aways (7) Is it still acceptable to publish standards-track RFCs that only address IPv4? We still have layer 3 work going on today which ignores IPv6 OSPFv2 is IPv4-specific OSPFv3 is v6-specific … fact of life … sometimes we don’t have a choice “Acceptable” to whom? Experimental RFCs without text on v6 may be OK

13. Page 13 Take-Aways (8) Observation: perhaps more people would be stimulated to read more I-Ds if each came with a Powerpoint presentation (e.g. like an abstract / overview) ? What if WGs had a page to present an overview of their technology? It is not a good assumption to hope everyone has read the drafts

14. Page 14 Take-Aways (9) www.ietf.org and www.iab.org don’t appear to be running v6 on any server?www.ietf.orgwww.iab.org Is this really the case? (Yes, except for the 3 weeks each year when IETF meets) What kind of example are we setting for the world ?? Comment: NOC team did a great job to get v6 running over the Wireless network this week.

15. Page 15 Take-Aways (10) Economic models … some influential stakeholders (e,g. network administrators) might want some consideration ….

16. Page 16 Take-Aways (11) IETF structure: lots of WGs working on short term, fast time to market issues … and only 15 people (viz. IAB) looking at the bigger picture and the future 15 is not enough Compelling visions for how things will get better could stimulate different activities, attract different people, to the IETF … spawn a new ‘branch’ (or Area) within the IETF Aaron is trying to help the IRTF connect better with the IETF, and the IAB is also trying to encourage more of this

17. Page 17 Take-Aways (12) We have lots of trade-offs to worry about: Balance takes time and consideration Designing simple protocols is really hard (like writing a message that fits on just 1 page?) Pain-shifting … always a lot of desire to shift the pain of complexity to somebody else Nobody is for reducing innovation … while innovation often generates more options (and therefore complexity) ?