summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9307.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9307.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc9307.txt768
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