Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                          T. NartenRequest for Comments: 5434                                           IBMCategory: Informational                                    February 2009Considerations for Having a Successful Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) SessionStatus of This Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights   and restrictions with respect to this document.Abstract   This document discusses tactics and strategy for hosting a successful   IETF Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) session, especially one oriented at the   formation of an IETF Working Group.  It is based on the experiences   of having participated in numerous BOFs, both successful and   unsuccessful.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. Recommended Steps ...............................................23. The Importance of Understanding the Real Problem ................74. The BOF Itself ..................................................85. Post-BOF Follow-Up ..............................................96. Pitfalls .......................................................107. Miscellaneous ..................................................127.1. Chairing ..................................................127.2. On the Need for a BOF .....................................138. Security Considerations ........................................139. Acknowledgments ................................................1310. Informative Reference .........................................13Narten                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 20091.  Introduction   This document provides suggestions on how to host a successful BOF at   an IETF meeting.  It is hoped that by documenting the methodologies   that have proven successful, as well as listing some pitfalls, BOF   organizers will improve their chances of hosting a BOF with a   positive outcome.   There are many reasons for hosting a BOF.  Some BOFs are not intended   to result in the formation of a Working Group (WG).  For example, a   BOF might be a one-shot presentation on a particular issue, in order   to provide information to the IETF Community.  Another example might   be to host an open meeting to discuss specific open issues with a   document that is not associated with an active WG, but for which   face-to-face interaction is needed to resolve issues.  In many cases,   however, the intent is to form a WG.  In those cases, the goal of the   BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement that:      - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right        group to attempt solving it.      - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the        problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).      - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that        is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and        what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.      - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,        proposed documents) are the right set.      - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of        having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its        charter in a timely fashion).   Additional details on WGs and BOFs can be found in [RFC2418].2.  Recommended Steps   The following steps present a sort of "ideal" sequence for hosting a   BOF where the goal is the formation of a working group.  The   important observation to make here is that most of these steps   involve planning for and engaging in significant public discussion,   and allowing for sufficient time for iteration and broad   participation, so that much of the work of the BOF can be done on a   public mailing list in advance of -- rather than during -- the BOF   itself.Narten                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009   It is also important to recognize the timing constraints.  As   described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is   approximately six weeks prior to an IETF meeting.  Working backwards   from that date, taking into consideration the time required to write   drafts, have public discussion, allow the ADs to evaluate the   proposed BOF, etc., the right time to start preparing for a BOF is   almost certainly the meeting prior to the one in which the BOF is   desired.  By implication, starting the work aimed at leading to a BOF   only 2 months prior to an IETF meeting is, in most cases, waiting too   long, and will likely result in the BOF being delayed until the   following IETF meeting.   The recommended steps for a BOF are as follows:   1) A small group of individuals gets together privately, discusses a      possible problem statement, and identifies the work to be done.      The group acts as a sort of "design team" to formulate a problem      statement, identify possible work items, and propose an agenda for      a BOF.      Possible sub-steps:      a) Consider whether the work might already fall within the scope         of an existing Working Group, in which case a BOF might not         even be necessary.  Individual Working Group charters can be         found athttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html and         indicate what a group is scoped to work on.      b) Select the area or areas in which the work most naturally fits         by identifying WGs that most closely relate to the proposed         work.  Note that it is not uncommon to find that a work item         could easily fit into two (or more) different areas and that no         one area is the obvious home.      c) Consult with specific WGs to see whether there is interest or         whether the work is in scope.  This can be done by posting         messages directly to WG mailing lists, contacting the WG         chairs, or contacting individuals known to participate in a         particular WG (e.g., from their postings or from documents they         have authored).      d) Consult with an area-specific mailing list about possible         interest.  (Most areas have their own area-specific mailing         lists.  Follow the links under each area athttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html to find details.)Narten                       Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009      e) Produce one or more Internet Drafts, describing the problem         and/or related work.  It cannot be emphasized enough that, for         the BOF, drafts relating to understanding the problem space are         much more valuable than drafts proposing specific solutions.      Timeline: This step can easily take 1-2 months; hence, begin 3-4      months before an IETF meeting.   2) The group may (or may not) approach an Area Director (or other      recognized or experienced leader) to informally float the BOF and      get feedback on the proposed work, scope of the charter, specific      steps that need to be taken before submitting a formal BOF      request, etc.  By "leader", we mean persons with significant IETF      experience who can provide helpful advice; individuals who have      successfully hosted BOFs before, current or former WG chairs, and      IESG or IAB members would be good candidates.      The dividing line between steps 1) and 2) is not exact.  At some      point, one will need to approach one or more Area Directors (ADs)      with a specific proposal that can be commented on.  Step 1) helps      shape an idea into something concrete enough that an AD can      understand the purpose and provide concrete feedback.  On the      other hand, one shouldn't spend too much time on step 1) if the      answer at step 2) would turn out to be "oh, we had a BOF on that      once before; have you reviewed the archives?".  Thus, there may be      some iteration involving going back and forth between steps 1) and      2).  Also, a quick conversation with an AD might lead them to      suggest some specific individuals or WGs you should consult with.      It may turn out that it is unclear in which area the proposed work      best fits.  In such cases, when approaching multiple ADs, it is      best to approach the ADs approximately simultaneously, state that      you are unsure in which area the work fits, and ask for advice      (e.g., by stating "I'm not sure which area this work best fits      under, but it looks like it might be Internet or Security or      both").  When contacting multiple ADs, it is strongly advised that      you inform them of which other ADs you are conversing with.  In      particular, it is usually counterproductive and not advisable to      go "AD shopping", where if one AD gives you an answer you don't      like, you go to another, without telling him/her what the first AD      said, in the hopes of getting a more favorable answer.      To summarize, steps 1) and 2) involve a lot of "socializing an      idea", that is, having discussions with a number of different      people to attempt gaining agreement on the problem and the need      for and appropriateness of having a BOF.  How much such discussion      is needed is very subjective, but it is critical in terms of      getting agreement that a BOF is appropriate.  One way to tell ifNarten                       Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009      you are close to getting it right: when talking to someone about      your idea for the first time, they quickly agree that a BOF seems      in order and don't have any major concerns.      Timeline: Steps 1-2) can easily take 1-2 months; hence, begin 3-4      months before an IETF meeting.   3) Create a public mailing list and post a "call for participation"      for the proposed BOF topic on various mailing lists (e.g., the      IETF list).  The call for participation advertises that a      "community of interest" is being formed to gauge whether there is      sufficient interest to host a BOF.  The goal is to draw in other      interested potential participants, to allow them to help shape the      BOF (e.g., by giving them time to write a draft, ask for agenda      time, help scope the work of the proposed work, argue that a BOF      is (or is not) needed, etc.).      Timeline: This step can easily take 1 month or longer; it also      needs to be started well before the Internet-Drafts cutoff (to      allow participants to submit drafts); hence, begin 2.5-3.5 months      before the IETF meeting.   4) Have substantive mailing list discussion.  It is not enough for a      handful of people to assert that they want a BOF; there needs to      be broader community interest.  A public mailing list allows ADs      (and others) to gauge how much interest there really is on a topic      area, as well as gauge how well the problem statement has been      scoped, etc.  At this phase of the BOF preparation, the emphasis      should be on getting agreement on the problem statement;      discussions about specific solutions tend to be distracting and      unhelpful.      Timeline: this step can easily take 1 month or longer; hence,      begin 2.5 months before the IETF meeting.   5) Submit a formal request to have a BOF.  Instructions for      submitting a formal request can be found athttp://www.ietf.org/instructions/MTG-SLOTS.html andhttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt.  Note that as part      of making a formal request, the organizers must identify the area      in which the BOF will be held (the Area Directors of that area      will be required to approve the BOF), include a proposed BOF      agenda, estimate the attendance, list conflicts with other      sessions that should be avoided, etc.      If the previous steps have been followed, the Area Directors (ADs)      should be in a good position to gauge whether there is sufficient      interest to justify approval of a BOF.Narten                       Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009      Note: it almost goes without saying that without one or more      Internet Drafts at this point, it is generally pointless to ask an      AD to approve a BOF.      Timeline: The Secretariat publishes an "important meeting dates"      calendar along with meeting information.  There is a firm deadline      (about six weeks prior to the meeting) for submitting a formal BOF      scheduling request.  Note that at the time of the deadline, an AD      will need to have sufficient information about the BOF to approve      or reject the request, so all of the previous steps will need to      have completed.   6) During the 2-4 weeks before an IETF (assuming a BOF has been      approved and scheduled), the focus (on the mailing list) should be      on identifying areas of agreement and areas of disagreement.      Since disagreement, or "lack of consensus", tends to be the main      reason for not forming a WG, focusing on those specific areas      where "lack of consensus" exists is critically important.  In      general, only after those disagreements have been resolved will a      WG be formed; thus, the main goal should be to find consensus and      work through the areas of disagreement.  Alternatively, a specific      case should be made about why the charter, as it is written, is      the best one, in spite of the stated opposition.   7) Prior to the BOF, it is critical to produce a proposed charter and      iterate on it on the mailing list to attempt to get a consensus      charter.  Ultimately, the most important question to ask during a      BOF is: "should a WG with the following charter be formed?".  It      goes without saying that a charter with shortcomings (no matter      how seemingly trivial to fix) will not achieve consensus if folk      still have issues with the specific wording.   8) Decide what questions will be asked during the BOF itself.  Since      the exact wording of the questions is critical (and hard to do on      the fly), it is strongly recommended that those questions be      floated on the mailing list and to the ADs prior to the BOF.  This      will enable people to understand what they will be asked to      approve and will allow the questions to be modified (prior to the      BOF) to remove ambiguities, etc.  Likewise, discussing these      questions in advance may lead to refinement of the charter so that      the questions can be answered affirmatively.   9) At the meeting, but before the BOF takes place, plan a meeting      with all of the presenters to have them meet each other, review      the agenda, and make sure everyone understands what is expected of      them (e.g., what time constraints they will be under whenNarten                       Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009      presenting).  Use this time to also work through any disagreements      that still remain.  Do the same "in the hallway" with other      interested parties!   10) Consult the tutorial schedule and consider attending relevant       tutorial sessions ("Working Group Chair Training", "Working Group       Leadership Training", etc.).  This is especially the case if you       are considering being the chair of a proposed WG.  Since the role       of the WG chair and BOF chair have a number of parallels, a       number of the topics covered in the tutorial apply to hosting a       BOF and developing a charter.3.  The Importance of Understanding the Real Problem   Throughout the process of chartering new work in the IETF, a key   issue is understanding (and finding consensus) on what the real,   underlying problem is that the customer, operator, or deployer of a   technology has and that the WG needs to address.  When a WG finishes   an effort, the WG's output will only be useful if it actually solves   a real, compelling problem faced by the actual user of the technology   (i.e., the customer or operator).  Unfortunately, there have been   more than a few IETF WGs whose output was not adopted, and in some of   those cases the cause was a lack of understanding of the real problem   the operator had.  In the end, the WG's output simply didn't address   the right problem.   Another issue that can happen is discussions about specific (or   competing) solution approaches effectively stalemating the WG (or   BOF), making it unable to make progress.  In some of those cases, the   arguments about the appropriateness of specific technologies are   actually proxies for the question of whether a proposed approach   adequately addresses the problem.  If there is a lack of clarity   about the actual underlying problem to be solved, there may well be   unresolvable arguments about the suitability of a particular   technical approach, depending on one's view of the actual problem and   the constraints associated with it.  Hence, it is critical for all   work to be guided by a clear and shared understanding of the   underlying problem.   The best description and understanding of an actual problem usually   comes from the customer, operator, or deployer of a technology.  They   are the ones that most clearly understand the difficulties they have   (that need addressing) and they are the ones who will have to deploy   any proposed solution.  Thus, it is critical to hear their voice when   formulating the details of the problem statement.  Moreover, when   evaluating the relative merits of differing solution approaches, it   is often helpful to go back to the underlying problem statement for   guidance in selecting the more appropriate approach.Narten                       Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 20094.  The BOF Itself   For the BOF itself, it is critically important to focus on the bottom   line:      What is it that one is attempting to achieve during the BOF?   Or, stated differently, after the BOF is over, by what criteria will   you decide whether or not the BOF was successful?   A good BOF organizer keeps a firm focus on the purpose of the BOF and   crafts an agenda in support of that goal.  Just as important,   presentations that do not directly support the goal should be   excluded, as they often become distractions, sow confusion, and   otherwise take focus away from the purpose of the BOF.  If the goal   is to form a WG, everything should lead to an (obvious) answer to the   following question:      Does the room agree that the IETF should form a WG with the      following (specific) charter?   One of the best ways to ensure a "yes" answer to the above, is by   performing adequate preparation before the BOF to ensure that the   community as a whole already agrees that the answer is "yes".  How   does one do that?  One good way seems to be:   1) Have a public discussion with sufficient time to allow iteration      and discussion.  (Hence, start a minimum of 3 months prior to the      IETF meeting.)   2) Work with the community to iterate on the charter and be sure to      address the significant concerns that are being raised.  (One can      address the concerns in advance -- and get advance agreement -- or      one can have those concerns be raised (again) during the BOF -- in      which case it is likely that the proposed charter will not be good      enough to get agreement during the actual BOF).   3) During the BOF, keep the agenda tightly focused on supporting the      need for the WG and otherwise making the case that the group has      identified a clearly-scoped charter and has agreement on what the      set of deliverables should be.   Another important reason for holding a BOF is to establish an   understanding of how the attendees (and the larger community) feel   about the proposed work.  Do they understand and agree on the problem   that needs solving?  Do they agree the problem is solvable, or that   new protocol work is needed?  To better understand the degree of   agreement, it is useful to ask the audience questions.Narten                       Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009   Whenever asking questions, it is important to ask the right ones --   questions that show where there is agreement and questions that probe   the details around where agreement is lacking.  Good questions   typically focus on aspects of the problem in a piecewise fashion,   establishing areas of consensus and identifying areas where   additional work is needed.  Poor questions do not serve to focus   future discussion where it is needed.  The following are examples of   questions that are often useful to ask.   1) Is there support to form a WG with the following charter?  (That      is, the charter itself is ready, as shown by community support.)   2) Does the community think that the problem statement is clear,      well-scoped, solvable, and useful to solve?   3) Can I see a show of hands of folk willing to review documents (or      comment on the mailing list)?   4) Who would be willing to serve as an editor for the following      document(s)?  (BOF chairs should take note of individuals who      raise their hands, but it is also a useful gauge to see if there      is a critical mass of editors to work on all the documents that      are to be produced.)   5) Does the community think that given the charter revisions      discussed during the BOF (subject to review and finalization on      the mailing list), a WG should be formed?   6) How many people feel that a WG should not be formed?  (If the      number of no responses is significant, it would help to ask those      saying no why they are opposed.)   7) Before asking a particular question, it is sometimes very      appropriate to ask: Do people feel like they have sufficient      information to answer the following question or is it premature to      even ask the question?   Unfortunately, it is also easy to ask the wrong questions.  Some   examples are given in a later section.5.  Post-BOF Follow-Up   After the BOF has taken place, it is advisable to take assessment of   how well things went and what the next steps are.  The ADs should be   included in this assessment.  Some things to consider:Narten                       Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009   1) Did the BOF go well enough that the logical next step is to focus      on refining the charter and becoming a WG before the next IETF      meeting?  If so, there will almost certainly be additional      discussion on the mailing list to refine the charter and work out      a few remaining items.      Note that it can be difficult to determine in some cases whether a      WG is a feasible next step.  Much will depend on details of how      the BOF went and/or whether the contentious items can either be      resolved on the mailing list or simply be excluded from the      charter and dealt with later (if at all).  Much will also depend      on the relevant AD's assessment of whether the proposed work is      ready to move forward.  Sometimes even a seemingly contentious BOF      can result in a WG being formed quickly -- provided the charter is      scoped appropriately.      If the next step is to attempt to form a WG, the charter needs to      be finalized on the BOF-specific mailing list.  Once done, the      IESG can be asked to formally consider the charter.  The IESG then      (usually) posts the proposed charter to the IETF list for      community feedback and makes a decision based in part on the      feedback it receives.   2) It may be the case that enough additional work still needs to take      place that aiming for a second (and final) BOF makes more sense.      In that case, many of the steps outlined earlier in this document      would be repeated, though at a faster pace.      The expectations for a second BOF are generally higher than those      for an initial BOF.  In addition to the work done up through the      first BOF, the first BOF will have highlighted the key areas where      additional work is needed.  The time leading up to the second BOF      will need to be spent working through those outstanding issues.      Second BOFs should not be a repeat of the first BOF, with the same      issues being raised and the same (unsatisfactory) responses      provided.  The second BOF needs to show that all previously      identified issues have been resolved and that formation of a WG is      now in order.6.  Pitfalls   Over the years, a number of pitfalls have been (repeatedly) observed:   1) Waiting too long before getting started.  It is very difficult to      prepare for a BOF on short notice.  Moreover, ADs are placed in a      no-win situation when asked to approve a BOF for which the      community has not had a chance to participate.  Steps 1-4 inSection 2 above are designed to show the ADs that there isNarten                       Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009      community support for a particular effort.  Short-circuiting those      steps forces an AD to make a judgment call with (usually) too      little information.  Moreover, because the community has not been      involved, it is much more likely that significant (and valid)      objections will be raised.  Often, those objections could have      been dealt with in advance -- had there been sufficient time to      work through them in advance.   2) Too much discussion/focus on solutions, rather than showing that      support exists for the problem statement itself, and that the      problem is well-understood and scoped.  The purpose of the BOF is      almost never to show that there are already proposed solutions,      but to demonstrate that there is a real problem that needs      solving, a solution would be beneficial to the community, it is      believed that a solution is achievable, and there is a critical      mass of community support to actually put in the real work of      developing a solution.   3) Asking the wrong question during the BOF.  Often, BOF organizers      feel like they need a "show of hands" on specific questions.  But,      unless a question is clear, well scoped, focused enough to      establish where there is agreement (and where not), etc., asking      such a question serves little purpose.  Even worse, asking poor      questions can frustrate the BOF participants and lead to      additional questions at the microphone, derailing the focus of the      BOF.      Examples of unreasonable questions to ask:      - Asking folk to approve or review a charter that is put on screen        but has not been posted to the mailing list sufficiently in        advance.  (You cannot ask folk to approve something they have        not seen.)      - Asking multi-part questions in which it is not clear (in        advance) what all of the exact questions will be and which        choices a participant needs to choose from.   4) Poorly advertised in advance, thus, the BOF itself does not      include the "right" participants.  This can happen for a number of      reasons, including:      - giving the BOF a "cute" but unintuitive name (or acronym),        preventing people from realizing that it would be of interest to        them.Narten                       Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 2009      - failing to advertise the BOF in advance to the community of        people that might be interested.  At a minimum, the existence of        a proposed BOF should be advertised on the IETF list as well as        on specific WG lists that are somewhat related.   5) Providing agenda time for the "wrong" presentations.  There is an      (unfortunate) tendency to give anyone who requests agenda time an      opportunity to speak.  This is often a mistake.  Presentations      should be limited to those that address the purpose of the BOF.      More important, presentations should not distract from the BOF's      purpose, or open up ratholes that are a distraction to the more      basic purpose of the BOF.  An example of problematic      presentations:      - presentations on specific solutions, when the purpose of the BOF        is to get agreement on the problem statement and the need for a        WG.  Solutions at this point are too-often "half-baked" and        allow discussion to rathole on aspects of the solutions.        Instead, the focus should be on getting agreement on whether to        form a WG.   6) Poor time management, leading to insufficient time for discussion      of the key issues (this is often closely related to 5).  When      presentations run over their allotted time, the end result is      either squeezing someone else's presentation or having      insufficient discussion time.  Neither is acceptable nor helpful.      BOF chairs need to give presenters just enough time to make key      points -- and no more.  It may well be helpful to go over a      presenter's slides in advance, to ensure they are on-topic and      will fit within the time slot.7.  Miscellaneous7.1.  Chairing   BOF organizers often assume that they will be chairing a BOF (and the   eventual WG).  Neither assumption is always true.  ADs need to ensure   that a BOF runs smoothly and is productive.  For some topics, it is a   given that the BOF will be contentious.  In such cases, ADs may want   to have a more experienced person chairing or co-chairing the BOF.   Also, those interested in organizing the BOF often are the most   interested in driving a particular technology (and may have strongly   held views about what direction an effort should take).  Working   Groups are often more effective when passionately involved parties   are allowed to focus on the technical work, rather than on managing   the WG itself.  Thus, do not be surprised (or offended!) if the AD   wants to pick one or more co-chairs for either the BOF or a follow-on   WG.Narten                       Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5434                Successful BOF Sessions            February 20097.2.  On the Need for a BOF   This document highlights the need for allowing for and actively   engaging in a broad public discussion on the merits of forming a WG.   It might surprise some, but there is no actual process requirement to   have a BOF prior to forming a WG.  The actual process requirement is   simply that the IESG (together with the AD(s) sponsoring the work)   approve a formal charter as described in [RFC2418].  In practice,   BOFs are used to engage the broader community on proposed work and to   help produce an acceptable charter.   There are two observations that can be made here.  First, BOFs are   often held not because they are (strictly speaking) required, but   because it is assumed they are needed or because ADs feel that a BOF   would be beneficial in terms of getting additional public   participation.  Hence, those interested in forming a WG should give   serious consideration to using the steps outlined above not just for   the purposes of creating a BOF, but to convince the IESG and the   broader community that a BOF is not even needed, as there is already   demonstrated, strong consensus that a WG should be formed.  Second,   the IESG should not forget that BOFs are simply a tool, and may not   even be the best tool in every situation.8.  Security Considerations   This document has no known security implications.9.  Acknowledgments   This document has benefited from specific feedback from Jari Arkko,   Brian Carpenter, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins, Lisa Dusseault, Pasi   Eronen, John Klensin, Tim Polk, Mark Townsley, and Bert Wijnen.10.  Informative Reference   [RFC2418]  Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and              Procedures",BCP 25,RFC 2418, September 1998.Author's Address   Thomas Narten   IBM Corporation   3039 Cornwallis Ave.   PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195   Phone: 919-254-7798   EMail: narten@us.ibm.comNarten                       Informational                     [Page 13]