Subject: Reminder: IETF 111 Birds of a Feather (BOF) proposals requested by 28 May

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 14:24:35 +0300

Hi,

this is a friendly reminder that preliminary proposals for Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) sessions during the upcoming IETF 111 meeting are requested by 28 May 2021.

The intention is to allow the IESG and IAB more time to work with BOF proponents to clarify and refine proposals ahead of the IETF 111 BOF proposal deadline on 11 June 2021.

Instructions for submitting a BOF proposal are available at: https://ietf.org/how/bofs/

Please also read https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5434, Considerations for Having a Successful Birds-of-a-Feather Session, if you are not familiar with it.

BOFs are just one of a number of ways of bringing new work into the IETF. If you are considering a BOF request but you are unsure whether to submit it, please tell the IESG now by sending an email to [email-masked], or speak to an individual Area Director (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/members/) about your idea.

Thanks,
Lars Eggert
IETF Chair

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 12:41:07 -0400

Is there a process for proposing/announcing virtual bar BOFs?

With QUIC set to be published, there are quite a few folk who are
interested in alternative approaches that meet very different use cases and
take approaches that are outside the QUIC design constraints. So while it
is not necessarily the case that any of that work will ever become a WG or
RG, there is a lot of experience that folk would like to discuss and
socialize.

For example, I have a scheme that is specifically designed for
transactional and streaming Web services that combines the capabilities of
TCP/HTTPS with those of SOAP+WS-Security. In the process, I think I
understand the original design mistake in the SOAP approach. This is
definitely not stuff you would want to support Web Browser use cases but it
is definitely stuff that is relevant to IoT and transactional services.

I am aware of at least three other transports, each optimized for slightly
different cases. This is the sort of thing we would usually meet in the bar
to discuss or hold a formal Bar BOF. It would be good to discuss under NOTE
WELL.

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:28 AM IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> this is a friendly reminder that preliminary proposals for
> Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) sessions during the upcoming IETF 111 meeting are
> requested by 28 May 2021.
>
> The intention is to allow the IESG and IAB more time to work with BOF
> proponents to clarify and refine proposals ahead of the IETF 111 BOF
> proposal deadline on 11 June 2021.
>
> Please also read https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5434, Considerations
> for Having a Successful Birds-of-a-Feather Session, if you are not familiar
> with it.
>
> BOFs are just one of a number of ways of bringing new work into the IETF.
> If you are considering a BOF request but you are unsure whether to submit
> it, please tell the IESG now by sending an email to [email-masked], or
> speak to an individual Area Director (
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/members/) about your idea.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars Eggert
> IETF Chair
>
>

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 19:56:41 +0300

There will be a wiki at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/ietf111 on which side meetings can be announced, similar to past IETF meetings, but it appears that wiki page hasn’t been created yet.

-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.

> On May 7, 2021, at 19:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> With QUIC set to be published, there are quite a few folk who are interested in alternative approaches that meet very different use cases and take approaches that are outside the QUIC design constraints. So while it is not necessarily the case that any of that work will ever become a WG or RG, there is a lot of experience that folk would like to discuss and socialize.
> 
> For example, I have a scheme that is specifically designed for transactional and streaming Web services that combines the capabilities of TCP/HTTPS with those of SOAP+WS-Security. In the process, I think I understand the original design mistake in the SOAP approach. This is definitely not stuff you would want to support Web Browser use cases but it is definitely stuff that is relevant to IoT and transactional services.
> 
> I am aware of at least three other transports, each optimized for slightly different cases. This is the sort of thing we would usually meet in the bar to discuss or hold a formal Bar BOF. It would be good to discuss under NOTE WELL.
> 
> 
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 10:39:00 -0700

On May 7, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> formal Bar BOF

Isn’t that a contradiction of terms?

---

From: Lloyd W <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 09:58:03 +1000

> On 8 May 2021, at 03:40, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

there's a dress code: masks.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 13:47:01 -0500

Dear IESG, adding Aaron as CC ...

> to discuss or hold a formal Bar BOF. It would be good to discuss under NOTE

This is the kind of thing that the IESG asked Aaron Falk to shepherd as Hot
RFC Lightning Talks, starting at IETF 101 (the descriptions and slides
weren't put in the meeting materials for IETF 101, but that started in IETF
102 - I think I remember you giving some of those, don't I? details at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/hotrfc/meetings/).

I am not unbiased, but I found those awesome, both when I was on the IESG
and after I stepped down and started announcing informal meetings myself).

It looks like the last IETF where we were able to do that was IETF 106 -
HotRFC got canceled along with everything else for IETF 107, and it looks
like a scheduling request was submitted for IETF 109, but we haven't had
HOTRFC talks in a while.

Two thoughts here -

   - Aaron's Rules were basically that you had 4 minutes to talk about any
   subject that was likely to be of interest to some portion of the IETF
   community, and then he rang very gentlemanly gong and hooked the speaker
   off the stage to applause), and that you needed to be onsite to announce a
   topic in HOTRFC, because Back In Those Times, we didn't have easy access to
   remote conferencing facilities and (more important) places to talk that
   were quiet enough for allow remote participation in side meetings, so we
   wanted to make sure people could follow the speakers out of the room. The
   second rule isn't necessary now, because ALL of the HotRFC speakers would
   be virtual for IETF 111, and many might be virtual for a while after that.
   - We always had HOTRFC talks on Sunday night, because (IIRC) that was as
   long as we could wait for people to show up onsite, without losing time for
   HOTRFC proponents to schedule meetings and talk with people onsite. That
   might still be the right answer for virtual or split virtual/onsite IETFs,
   or it might not, but IESGs can certainly figure stuff like that out, or
   just delegate to someone smart, like we did with Aaron.

If anyone on the current IESG would be interested in restarting HOTRFC
talks, I'd be happy to help with institutional memory, and Aaron would be a
wealth of information.

I THINK all that's needed is someone to say "let's schedule this" and
decide who will be the host who can mute speakers who run over their four
minutes 😀. The secretariat is good at making stuff like this happen.

Best,

Spencer