doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 768 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9307.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9307.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..844c666
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9307.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,768 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                           N. ten Oever
+Request for Comments: 9307                       University of Amsterdam
+Category: Informational                                          C. Cath
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                  University of Cambridge
+                                                            M. Kühlewind
+                                                                Ericsson
+                                                           C. S. Perkins
+                                                   University of Glasgow
+                                                          September 2022
+
+
+     Report from the IAB Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID) 2021
+
+Abstract
+
+   The "Show me the numbers: Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID)"
+   workshop was convened by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from
+   November 29 to December 2, 2021 and hosted by the IN-SIGHT.it project
+   at the University of Amsterdam; however, it was converted to an
+   online-only event.  The workshop was organized into two discussion
+   parts with a hackathon activity in between.  This report summarizes
+   the workshop's discussion and identifies topics that warrant future
+   work and consideration.
+
+   Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
+   workshop.  The views and positions documented in this report are
+   those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB
+   views and positions.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for informational purposes.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
+   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
+   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
+   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
+   publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
+   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9307.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (https://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.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+   2.  Workshop Scope and Discussion
+     2.1.  Tools, Data, and Methods
+     2.2.  Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
+     2.3.  Community and Diversity
+     2.4.  Publications, Process, and Decision Making
+     2.5.  Environmental Sustainability
+   3.  Hackathon Report
+   4.  Position Papers
+     4.1.  Tools, Data, and Methods
+     4.2.  Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
+     4.3.  Community and Diversity
+     4.4.  Publications, Process, and Decision Making
+     4.5.  Environmental Sustainability
+   5.  Informative References
+   Appendix A.  Data Taxonomy
+   Appendix B.  Program Committee
+   Appendix C.  Workshop Participants
+   IAB Members at the Time of Approval
+   Acknowledgments
+   Authors' Addresses
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The IETF, as an international Standards Developing Organization
+   (SDO), hosts a diverse set of data about the IETF's history and
+   development, current standardization activities, Internet protocols,
+   and the institutions that comprise the IETF.  A large portion of this
+   data is publicly available, yet it is underutilized as a tool to
+   inform the work in the IETF or the broader research community that is
+   focused on topics like Internet governance and trends in information
+   and communication technologies (ICT) standard setting.
+
+   The aim of the "IAB Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID) 2021"
+   workshop was to study how IETF data is currently used, to understand
+   what insights can be drawn from that data, and to explore open
+   questions around how that data may be further used in the future.
+
+   These questions can inform a research agenda drawing from IETF data
+   that fosters further collaborative work among interested parties,
+   ranging from academia and civil society to industry and IETF
+   leadership.
+
+2.  Workshop Scope and Discussion
+
+   The workshop was organized with two all-group discussion slots at the
+   beginning and the end of the workshop.  In between, the workshop
+   participants organized hackathon activities based on topics
+   identified during the initial discussion and in submitted position
+   papers.  The following topic areas were identified and discussed.
+
+2.1.  Tools, Data, and Methods
+
+   The IETF holds a wide range of data sources.  The main ones used are
+   the mailinglist archives [Mail-Arch], RFCs [IETF-RFCs], and the
+   datatracker [Datatracker].  The latter provides information on
+   participants, authors, meeting proceedings, minutes, and more
+   [Data-Overview].  Furthermore, there are statistics for the IETF
+   websites [IETF-Statistics], the working group Github repositories,
+   and the IETF survey data [Survey-Data].  There was discussion about
+   the utility of download statistics for the RFCs themselves from
+   different repos.
+
+   There is a wide range of tools to analyze this data produced by IETF
+   participants or researchers interested in the work of the IETF.  Two
+   projects that presented their work at the workshop were BigBang
+   [BigBang] and Sodestream's IETFdata [ietfdata] library.  The RFC
+   Prolog Database was described in a submitted paper; see
+   [Prolog-Database].  These projects could provide additional insight
+   into existing IETF statistics [ArkkoStats] and datatracker statistics
+   [DatatrackerStats], e.g., gender-related information.  Privacy issues
+   and the implications of making such data publicly available were
+   discussed as well.
+
+   The datatracker itself is a community tool that welcomes
+   contributions; for example, for additions to the existing interfaces
+   or the statistics page directly, see the Datatracker Database
+   Overview [Data-Overview].  At the time of the workshop, instructions
+   about how to set up a local development environment could be found at
+   IAB AID Workshop Data Resources [DataResources].  Questions or
+   discussion about the datatracker and possible enhancements can be
+   sent to tools-discuss@ietf.org.
+
+2.2.  Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
+
+   A large portion of the submitted position papers indicated interest
+   in researching questions about industry control in the
+   standardization process (as opposed to individual contributions in a
+   personal capacity), where industry control covers both a) technical
+   contributions and the ability to successfully standardize these
+   contributions and b) competition on leadership roles.  To assess
+   these questions, investigating participant affiliations, including
+   "indirect" affiliations (e.g., by tracking funding and changes in
+   affiliation) was discussed.  The need to model company
+   characteristics or stakeholder groups was also discussed.
+
+   Discussion about the analysis of IETF data shows that affiliation
+   dynamics are hard to capture due to the specifics of how the data is
+   entered and because of larger social dynamics.  On the side of IETF
+   data capture, affiliation is an open text field that causes people to
+   write their affiliation down in different ways (e.g., capitalization,
+   space, word separation, etc).  A common data format could contribute
+   to analyses that compare SDO performance and behavior of actors
+   inside and across standards bodies.  To help with this, a draft data
+   model was developed during the hackathon portion of the workshop; the
+   data model can be found in Appendix A.
+
+   Furthermore, there is the issue of mergers, acquisitions, and
+   subsidiary companies.  There is no authoritative exogenous source of
+   variation for affiliation changes, so hand-collected and curated data
+   is used to analyze changes in affiliation over time.  While this
+   approach is imperfect, conclusions can be drawn from the data.  For
+   example, in the case of mergers or acquisition where a small
+   organization joins a large organization, this results in a
+   statistically significant increase in likelihood of an individual
+   being put in a working group chair position (see the document by
+   Baron and Kanevskaia [LEADERSHIP-POSITIONS]).
+
+2.3.  Community and Diversity
+
+   The workshop participants were highly interested in using existing
+   data to better understand who the current IETF community is.  They
+   were also interested in the community's diversity and how to
+   potentially increase it and thereby increase inclusivity, e.g.,
+   understanding if there are certain factors that "drive people away"
+   and why.  Inclusivity and transparency about the standardization
+   process are generally important to keep the Internet and its
+   development process viable.  As commented during the workshop
+   discussion, when measuring and evaluating different angles of
+   diversity, it is also important to understand the actual goals that
+   are intended when increasing diversity, e.g., in order to increase
+   competence (mainly technical diversity from different companies and
+   stakeholder groups) or relevance (also regional diversity and
+   international footprint).
+
+   The discussion on community and diversity spanned from methods that
+   draw from novel text mining, time series clustering, graph mining,
+   and psycholinguistic approaches to understand the consensus mechanism
+   to more speculative approaches about what it would take to build a
+   feminist Internet.  The discussion also covered the data needed to
+   measure who is in the community and how diverse it is.
+
+   The discussion highlighted that part of the challenge is defining
+   what diversity means and how to measure it, or as one participant
+   highlighted, defining "who the average IETFer is".  There was a
+   question about what to do about missing data or non-participating or
+   underrepresented communities, like women, individuals from the
+   African continent, and network operators.  In terms of how IETF data
+   is structured, various researchers mentioned that it is hard to track
+   conversations because mail threads split, merge, and change.  The
+   ICANN-at-large model came up as an example of how to involve relevant
+   stakeholders in the IETF that are currently not present.  Conversely,
+   it is also interesting for outside communities (especially policy
+   makers) to get a sense of who the IETF community is and keep them
+   updated.
+
+   The human element of the community and diversity was highlighted.  In
+   order to understand the IETF community's diversity, it is important
+   to talk to people (beyond text analysis).  In order to ensure
+   inclusivity, individual participants must make an effort to, as one
+   participant recounted, tell them their participation is valuable.
+
+2.4.  Publications, Process, and Decision Making
+
+   A number of submissions focused on the RFC publication process, on
+   the development of standards and other RFCs in the IETF, and on how
+   the IETF makes decisions.  This included work on technical decisions
+   about the content of the standards, on procedural and process
+   decisions, and on questions around how we can understand, model, and
+   perhaps improve the standards process.  Some of the work considered
+   what makes an RFC successful, how RFCs are used and referenced, and
+   what we can learn about the importance of a topic by studying the
+   RFCs, Internet-Drafts, and email discussions.
+
+   There were three sets of questions to consider in this area.  The
+   first question related to the success and failure of standards and
+   considered:
+
+   *  What makes a successful and good RFC?
+
+   *  What makes the process of making RFCs successful?
+
+   *  How are RFCs used and referenced once published?
+
+   Discussion considered how to better understand the path from an
+   Internet-Draft to an RFC, to see if there are specific factors that
+   lead to successful development of an Internet-Draft into an RFC.
+   Participants explored the extent to which this depends on the
+   seniority and experience of the authors, on the topic and IETF area,
+   on the extent and scope of mailing list discussion, and other
+   factors, to understand whether success of an Internet-Draft can be
+   predicted and whether interventions can be developed to increase the
+   likelihood of success for work.
+
+   The second question focused on decision making.
+
+   *  How does the IETF make design decisions?
+
+   *  What are the bottlenecks in effective decision making?
+
+   *  When is a decision made?  And what is the decision?
+
+   Difficulties here lie in capturing decisions and the results of
+   consensus calls early in the process, and understanding the factors
+   that lead to effective decision making.
+
+   Finally, there were questions regarding what can be learned about
+   protocols by studying IETF publications, processes, and decision
+   making.  For example:
+
+   *  Are there insights to be gained around how security concerns are
+      discussed and considered in the development of standards?
+
+   *  Is it possible to verify correctness of protocols and detect
+      ambiguities?
+
+   *  What can be learned by extracting insights from implementations
+      and activities on implementation efforts?
+
+   Answers to these questions will come from analysis of IETF emails,
+   RFCs and Internet-Drafts, meeting minutes, recordings, Github data,
+   and external data such as surveys, etc.
+
+2.5.  Environmental Sustainability
+
+   The final discussion session considered environmental sustainability.
+   Topics included what the IETF's role with respect to climate change,
+   both in terms of what is the environmental impact of the way the IETF
+   develops standards and in terms of what is the environmental impact
+   of the standards the IETF develops.
+
+   Discussion started by considering how sustainable IETF meetings are,
+   focusing on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions IETF
+   meetings are responsible for and how can we make the IETF more
+   sustainable.  Analysis looked at the home locations of participants,
+   meeting locations, and carbon footprint of air travel and remote
+   attendance to estimate the CO2 costs of an IETF meeting.  While the
+   analysis is ongoing, initial results suggest that the costs of
+   holding multiple in-person IETF meetings per year are likely
+   unsustainable in terms of CO2 emission.
+
+   The extent to which climate impacts are considered during the
+   development and standardization of Internet protocols was discussed.
+   RFCs and Internet-Drafts of active working groups were reviewed for
+   relevant keywords to highlight the extent to which climate change,
+   energy efficiency, and related topics were considered in the design
+   of Internet protocols.  This review revealed the limited extent to
+   which these topics have been considered.  There is ongoing work to
+   get a fuller picture by reviewing meeting minutes and mail archives
+   as well, but initial results show only limited consideration of these
+   important issues.
+
+3.  Hackathon Report
+
+   The middle two days of the workshop were organized as a hackathon.
+   The aims of the hackathon were to 1) acquaint people with the
+   different data sources and analysis methods, 2) seek to answer some
+   of the questions that came up during presentations on the first day
+   of the workshop, and 3) foster collaboration among researchers to
+   grow a community of IETF data researchers.
+
+   At the end of Day 1, the plenary presentation day, people were
+   invited to divide themselves into groups and select their own
+   respective facilitators.  All groups had their own work space and
+   could use their own communication methods and channels.  Furthermore,
+   daily check-ins were organized during the two hackathon days.  On the
+   final day, the hackathon groups presented their work in a plenary
+   session.
+
+   According to the co-chairs, the objectives of the hackathon have been
+   met, and the output significantly exceeded expectations.  It allowed
+   more interaction than academic conferences and produced some actual
+   research results by people who had not collaborated before the
+   workshop.
+
+   Future workshops that choose to integrate a hackathon could consider
+   asking participants to submit issues and questions beforehand
+   (potentially as part of the position papers or the sign-up process)
+   to facilitate the formation of groups.
+
+4.  Position Papers
+
+4.1.  Tools, Data, and Methods
+
+   Sebastian Benthall, "Using Complex Systems Analysis to Identify
+   Organizational Interventions" [COMPLEX-SYSTEMS]
+
+   Stephen McQuistin and Colin Perkins, "The ietfdata Library"
+   [ietfdata-Library]
+
+   Marc Petit-Huguenin, "The RFC Prolog Database" [Prolog-Database]
+
+   Jari Arkko, "Observations about IETF process measurements"
+   [MEASURING-IETF-PROCESSES]
+
+4.2.  Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
+
+   Justus Baron and Olia Kanevskaia, "Competition for Leadership
+   Positions in Standards Development Organizations"
+   [LEADERSHIP-POSITIONS]
+
+   Nick Doty, "Analyzing IETF Data: Changing affiliations"
+   [ANALYZING-AFFILIATIONS]
+
+   Don Le, "Analysing IETF Data Position Paper" [ANALYSING-IETF]
+
+   Elizaveta Yachmeneva, "Research Proposal" [RESEARCH-PROPOSAL]
+
+4.3.  Community and Diversity
+
+   Priyanka Sinha, Michael Ackermann, Pabitra Mitra, Arvind Singh, and
+   Amit Kumar Agrawal, "Characterizing the IETF through its consensus
+   mechanisms" [CONSENSUS-MECHANISMS]
+
+   Mallory Knodel, "Would feminists have built a better internet?"
+   [FEMINIST-INTERNET]
+
+   Wes Hardaker and Genevieve Bartlett, "Identifying temporal trends in
+   IETF participation" [TEMPORAL-TRENDS]
+
+   Lars Eggert, "Who is the Average IETF Participant?"
+   [AVERAGE-PARTICIPANT]
+
+   Emanuele Tarantino, Justus Baron, Bernhard Ganglmair, Nicola Persico,
+   and Timothy Simcoe, "Representation is Not Sufficient for Selecting
+   Gender Diversity" [GENDER-DIVERSITY]
+
+4.4.  Publications, Process, and Decision Making
+
+   Michael Welzl, Carsten Griwodz, and Safiqul Islam, "Understanding
+   Internet Protocol Design Decisions" [DESIGN-DECISIONS]
+
+   Ignacio Castro et al., "Characterising the IETF through the lens of
+   RFC deployment" [RFC-DEPLOYMENT]
+
+   Carsten Griwodz, Safiqul Islam, and Michael Welzl, "The Impact of
+   Continuity" [CONTINUITY]
+
+   Paul Hoffman, "RFCs Change" [RFCs-CHANGE]
+
+   Xue Li, Sara Magliacane, and Paul Groth, "The Challenges of
+   Cross-Document Coreference Resolution in Email"
+   [CROSS-DOC-COREFERENCE]
+
+   Amelia Andersdotter, "Project in time series analysis: e-mailing
+   lists" [E-MAILING-LISTS]
+
+   Mark McFadden, "A Position Paper by Mark McFadden" [POSITION-PAPER]
+
+4.5.  Environmental Sustainability
+
+   Christoph Becker, "Towards Environmental Sustainability with the
+   IETF" [ENVIRONMENTAL]
+
+   Daniel Migault, "CO2eq: Estimating Meetings' Air Flight CO2
+   Equivalent Emissions: An Illustrative Example with IETF meetings"
+   [CO2eq]
+
+5.  Informative References
+
+   [ANALYSING-IETF]
+              Article 19, "Analysing IETF Position Paper",
+              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
+              Le.pdf>.
+
+   [ANALYZING-AFFILIATIONS]
+              Doty, N., "Analyzing IETF Data: Changing affiliations",
+              September 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
+              uploads/2021/11/Doty.pdf>.
+
+   [ArkkoStats]
+              "Document Statistics",
+              <https://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats.html>.
+
+   [AVERAGE-PARTICIPANT]
+              Eggert, L., "Who is the Average IETF Participant?",
+              November 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
+              uploads/2021/11/Eggert.pdf>.
+
+   [BigBang]  BigBang, "Welcome to BigBang's documentation!",
+              <https://bigbang-py.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>.
+
+   [CO2eq]    Migault, D., "CO2eq: Estimating Meetings' Air Flight CO2
+              Equivalent Emissions: An Illustrative Example with IETF
+              meeting", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
+              uploads/2021/11/Migault.pdf>.
+
+   [COMPLEX-SYSTEMS]
+              Benthall, S., "Using Complex Systems Analysis to Identify
+              Organizational Interventions", 2021, <https://www.iab.org/
+              wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Benthall.pdf>.
+
+   [CONSENSUS-MECHANISMS]
+              Sinha, P., Ackermann, M., Mitra, P., Singh, A., and A.
+              Kumar Agrawal, "Characterizing the IETF through its
+              consensus mechanisms", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
+              IAB-uploads/2021/11/Sinha.pdf>.
+
+   [CONTINUITY]
+              Griwodz, C., Islam, S., and M. Welzl, "The Impact of
+              Continuity", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
+              uploads/2021/11/Griwodz.pdf>.
+
+   [CROSS-DOC-COREFERENCE]
+              Li, X., Magliacane, S., and P. Groth, "The Challenges of
+              Cross-Document Coreference Resolution in Email",
+              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
+              Groth.pdf>.
+
+   [Data-Overview]
+              "Datatracker Database Overview", for the IAB AID Workshop,
+              <https://notes.ietf.org/iab-aid-datatracker-database-
+              overview#>.
+
+   [DataResources]
+              "IAB AID Workshop Data Resources",
+              <https://notes.ietf.org/iab-aid-data-resources#>.
+
+   [Datatracker]
+              IETF, "Datatracker", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/>.
+
+   [DatatrackerStats]
+              IETF, "Statistics", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/>.
+
+   [DESIGN-DECISIONS]
+              Welzl, M., Griwodz, C., and S. Islam, "Understanding
+              Internet Protocol Design Decisions", <https://www.iab.org/
+              wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Welzl.pdf>.
+
+   [E-MAILING-LISTS]
+              Andersdotter, A., "Project in time series analysis:
+              e-mailing lists", May 2018, <https://www.iab.org/wp-
+              content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Andersdotter.pdf>.
+
+   [ENVIRONMENTAL]
+              Becker, C., "Towards Environmental Sustainability with the
+              IETF", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
+              uploads/2021/11/Becker.pdf>.
+
+   [FEMINIST-INTERNET]
+              Knodel, M., "Would feminists have built a better
+              internet?", September 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-
+              content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Knodel.pdf>.
+
+   [GENDER-DIVERSITY]
+              Baron, J., Ganglmair, B., Persico, N., Simcoe, T., and E.
+              Tarantino, "Representation is Not Sufficient for Selecting
+              Gender Diversity", August 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-
+              content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Tarantino.pdf>.
+
+   [IETF-RFCs]
+              IETF, "RFCs", <https://www.ietf.org/standards/rfcs/>.
+
+   [IETF-Statistics]
+              IETF, "Web analytics",
+              <https://www.ietf.org/policies/web-analytics/>.
+
+   [ietfdata] "IETF Data", Internet Protocols Laboratory, commit
+              c53bf15, August 2022,
+              <https://github.com/glasgow-ipl/ietfdata>.
+
+   [ietfdata-Library]
+              McQuistin, S. and C. Perkins, "The ietfdata Library",
+              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
+              McQuistin.pdf>.
+
+   [LEADERSHIP-POSITIONS]
+              Baron, J. and O. Kanevskaia, "Competition for Leadership
+              Positions in Standards Development Organizations", October
+              2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
+              Baron.pdf>.
+
+   [Mail-Arch]
+              IETF, "Mail Archive",
+              <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/>.
+
+   [MEASURING-IETF-PROCESSES]
+              Arkko, J., "Observations about IETF process measurements",
+              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
+              Arkko.pdf>.
+
+   [POSITION-PAPER]
+              McFadden, M., "A Position Paper", <https://www.iab.org/wp-
+              content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/McFadden.pdf>.
+
+   [Prolog-Database]
+              Huguenin, P., "The RFC Prolog Database", September 2021,
+              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Petit-
+              Huguenin.txt>.
+
+   [RESEARCH-PROPOSAL]
+              Yachmeneva, E., "Research Proposal", <https://www.iab.org/
+              wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Yachmeneva.pdf>.
+
+   [RFC-DEPLOYMENT]
+              Castro, I., Healey, P., Iqbal, W., Karan, M., Khare, P.,
+              McQuistin, S., Perkins, C., Purver, M., Qadir, J., and G.
+              Tyson, "Characterising the IETF through the lens of RFC
+              deployment", November 2021,
+              <https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3487552.3487821>.
+
+   [RFCs-CHANGE]
+              Hoffman, P., "RFCs Change", September 2021,
+              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
+              Hoffman.pdf>.
+
+   [Survey-Data]
+              IETF, "IETF Community Survey 2021", 11 August 2021,
+              <https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-community-survey-2021/>.
+
+   [TEMPORAL-TRENDS]
+              Hardaker, W. and G. Bartlett, "Identifying temporal trends
+              in IETF participation", September 2021,
+              <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
+              Hardaker.pdf>.
+
+Appendix A.  Data Taxonomy
+
+A Draft Data Taxonomy for SDO Data:
+
+Organization:
+  Organization Subsidiary
+  Time
+  Email domain
+  Website domain
+  Size
+          Revenue, annual
+          Number of employees
+  Org - Affiliation Category (Labels) ; 1 : N
+    Association
+    Advertising Company
+    Chipmaker
+    Content Distribution Network
+    Content Providers
+    Consulting
+    Cloud Provider
+    Cybersecurity
+    Financial Institution
+    Hardware vendor
+    Internet Registry
+    Infrastructure Company
+    Networking Equipment Vendor
+    Network Service Provider
+    Regional Standards Body
+    Regulatory Body
+    Research and Development Institution
+    Software Provider
+    Testing and Certification
+    Telecommunications Provider
+    Satellite Operator
+
+Org - Stakeholder Group : 1 - 1
+    Academia
+    Civil Society
+    Private Sector -- including industry consortia and associations;
+    state-owned and government-funded businesses
+    Government
+    Technical Community (IETF, ICANN, ETSI, 3GPP, oneM2M, etc)
+    Intergovernmental organization
+
+SDO:
+  Membership Types (SDO)
+  Members (Organizations for some, individuals for others...)
+  Membership organization
+    Regional SDO
+      ARIB
+      ATIS
+      CCSA
+      ETSI
+      TSDSI
+      TTA
+      TTC
+    Consortia
+
+Country of Origin:
+  Country Code
+
+Number of Participants
+
+Patents
+  Organization
+  Authors - 1 : N - Persons/Participants
+  Time
+  Region
+  Patent Pool
+  Standard Essential Patent
+    If so, for which standard
+
+Participant (An individual person)
+  Name
+  1: N - Emails
+    Time start / time end
+
+  1 : N : Affiliation
+    Organization
+    Position
+          Time start / end
+
+  1 : N : Affiliation - SDO
+    Position
+    SDO
+    Time
+
+  Email Domain (personal domain)
+
+  (Contribution data is in other tables)
+
+Document
+  Status of Document
+          Internet Draft
+          Work Item
+    Standard
+  Author -
+    Name
+          Affiliation - Organization
+    Person/Participant
+        (Affiliation from Authors only?)
+
+Data Source - Provenance for any data imported from an external data set
+
+Meeting
+  Time
+  Place
+  Agenda
+  Registrations
+    Name
+    Email
+    Affiliation
+
+Appendix B.  Program Committee
+
+   The workshop Program Committee members were Niels ten Oever (Chair,
+   University of Amsterdam), Colin Perkins (Chair, IRTF, University of
+   Glasgow), Corinne Cath (Chair, Oxford Internet Institute), Mirja
+   Kühlewind (IAB, Ericsson), Zhenbin Li (IAB, Huawei), and Wes Hardaker
+   (IAB, USC/ISI).
+
+Appendix C.  Workshop Participants
+
+   The Workshop Participants were Bernhard Ganglmair, Carsten Griwodz,
+   Christoph Becker, Colin Perkins, Corinne Cath, Daniel Migault, Don
+   Le, Effy Xue Li, Elizaveta Yachmeneva, Francois Ortolan, Greg Wood,
+   Ignacio Castro, Jari Arkko, Justus Baron, Karen O'Donoghue, Lars
+   Eggert, Mallory Knodel, Marc Petit-Huguenin, Mark McFadden, Michael
+   Welzl, Mirja Kühlewind, Nick Doty, Niels ten Oever, Priyanka Sinha,
+   Safiqul Islam, Sebastian Benthall, Stephen McQuistin, Wes Hardaker,
+   and Zhenbin Li.
+
+IAB Members at the Time of Approval
+
+   Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
+   approved for publication were:
+
+      Jari Arkko
+      Deborah Brungard
+      Lars Eggert
+      Wes Hardaker
+      Cullen Jennings
+      Mallory Knodel
+      Mirja Kühlewind
+      Zhenbin Li
+      Tommy Pauly
+      David Schinazi
+      Russ White
+      Quin Wu
+      Jiankang Yao
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+   The Program Committee wishes to extend its thanks to Cindy Morgan for
+   logistics support and to Kate Pundyk for note-taking.
+
+   We would like to thank the Ford Foundation for their support that
+   made participation of Corinne Cath, Kate Pundyk, and Mallory Knodel
+   possible (grant number, 136179, 2020).
+
+   Efforts put in this workshop by Niels ten Oever were made possible
+   through funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) through grant
+   MVI.19.032 as part of the program 'Maatschappelijk Verantwoord
+   Innoveren (MVI)'.
+
+   Efforts in the organization of this workshop by Colin Perkins were
+   supported in part by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences
+   Research Council under grant EP/S036075/1.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Niels ten Oever
+   University of Amsterdam
+   Email: mail@nielstenoever.net
+
+
+   Corinne Cath
+   University of Cambridge
+   Email: corinnecath@gmail.com
+
+
+   Mirja Kühlewind
+   Ericsson
+   Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com
+
+
+   Colin Perkins
+   University of Glasgow
+   Email: csp@csperkins.org