From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc9400.txt | 473 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 473 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc9400.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9400.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9400.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9400.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a34a4d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9400.txt @@ -0,0 +1,473 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kühlewind +Request for Comments: 9400 Ericsson +Category: Informational M. Duke +ISSN: 2070-1721 Google + June 2023 + + + Guidelines for the Organization of Fully Online Meetings + +Abstract + + This document provides guidelines for the planning and organization + of fully online meetings, regarding the number, length, and + composition of sessions on the meeting agenda. These guidelines are + based on the experience gained by holding online meetings during the + COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. + +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 Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents + approved by the IESG are 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/rfc9400. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2023 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. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the + Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described + in the Revised BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 1.1. Requirements Language + 2. Some History + 3. Guidelines for Online Meeting Planning + 3.1. Time Zone Selection + 3.1.1. Guidelines for Selection + 3.2. Number of Days and Total Hours per Day + 3.3. Session/Break Length + 3.4. Number of Parallel Tracks + 4. Additional Considerations and Recommendations + 4.1. Full vs. Limited Agenda (and Interim Meetings) + 4.2. Flexibility of Time Usage + 4.3. Inclusivity and Socializing + 4.4. Experiments + 4.5. IANA Considerations + 4.6. Security Considerations + 5. References + 5.1. Normative References + 5.2. Informative References + Acknowledgments + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the IETF to convert all its + plenary meetings to online-only events. This document records the + experience gained by holding plenary meetings fully online and + proposes guidelines based on this experience. In general, + participant surveys indicated satisfaction with the organization of + these meetings. + + Although these guidelines reflect lessons learned in 2020 and 2021, + the IETF is encouraged to continue to experiment with the format and + agenda of fully online meetings, using this document as a baseline. + + Hybrid meetings (meaning meetings that have large remote + participation but also onsite participation) are out of scope. + However, some of the experience gained from fully online meetings + might also provide input for decisions regarding the organization of + hybrid meetings. + +1.1. Requirements Language + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in + BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. + + This document uses the term "plenary meeting" for the whole IETF + meeting that covers the IETF meeting week; this term is used to + distinguish the plenary meeting from other IETF meetings like + "interim meetings". The term "administrative plenary" is used for + the respective session during the IETF meeting week that is usually + hosted on Wednesday. + +2. Some History + + When the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a worldwide + pandemic in March 2020, the IETF canceled its plenary meeting and + organized an online replacement in less than 2 weeks. For this first + online-only meeting, the agenda was reduced to a set of sessions that + benefited most from cross-area participation, like BoFs, first-time + meetings of new working groups, and dispatch sessions. It also + included the administrative plenary to preserve the official handover + procedures that occur at March IETF meetings, as described in + [RFC8713]. + + With a reduced agenda, the meeting format was two sessions (about 4 + hours) per day with a maximum of two parallel tracks. Other working + group meetings were scheduled as interims over the following 6 weeks. + The IESG published a purely advisory recommended schedule + [INTERIM-SCHEDULE] to reduce conflicts among those interims. + + While satisfaction was high right after the meeting + [IETF107-FEEDBACK], some participants later indicated in mailing list + discussions that the period of intensive interims had a greater + impact on their calendar than a single plenary meeting week, and in + some meetings participation was reduced. Those interims tended to + occur at times convenient for the bulk of participants, which was + convenient for most but could exclude those in less common time + zones. + + For the remainder of 2020 and 2021, the online schedule was switched + back to be similar to an in-person meeting (1- to 2-hour slots and + eight or nine parallel tracks). However, each day was limited to 5-6 + hours in recognition that remote participation is more tiring. + + All fully online meetings followed the time zone of the planned in- + person meeting location. As a 6-hour agenda has some flexibility + regarding the start time while still fitting within a previously used + 8-hour in-person agenda, the start time was approximately noon, with + adjustments of an hour or so to mitigate the impact of early morning + hours in time zones with many participants. As selection of in- + person meeting sites was consistent with the 1-1-1 guideline as + documented in [RFC8719], this approach was intended to share the + burden across all common geographies roughly equally. + +3. Guidelines for Online Meeting Planning + +3.1. Time Zone Selection + + The following algorithm was not used in 2020 or 2021, but it enables + most participants to avoid late-night sessions in two out of every + three fully online IETF plenary meetings. Basically, every fully + online meeting is for two regions of the three regions described in + [RFC8719], with one being roughly after sunrise and the other around + sundown. This has the trade-off that the third region is in the + middle of night. + + The times are also seasonally adjusted to leverage differentials in + Daylight Saving Time. These time slots are as follows, in UTC, based + on the Daylight Saving Practices at the time of publication: + + +===============+=========================+=========================+ + | Name | Times (Northern Summer) | Times (Northern | + | | | Winter) | + +===============+=========================+=========================+ + | North America | 0500-1100 UTC | 0600-1200 UTC | + | Night | | | + +---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+ + | Asia Night | 1300-1900 UTC | 1400-2000 UTC | + +---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+ + | Europe Night | 2200-0400 UTC | 2200-0400 UTC | + +---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+ + + Table 1 + + Note that the "Europe Night" slot covers the "early morning" slot for + Asia where most countries do not have Daylight Saving Time. + + If Daylight Saving Practices change -- this change is under + consideration in multiple countries at the time of publication -- + this table may need adjustment. + + The intent of rotating between these three slots is to scatter + meetings throughout the course of the global day, to maximize the + ease of participants so that no attendee has to be consistently + inconvenienced, regardless of their location and what time of day is + optimal for their schedule. However, as participation is distributed + globally, it needs to be acknowledged that restricting the scheme to + three regions observes the intent of [RFC8719] but does not achieve + the goal of two non-late-night sessions for all participants equally. + +3.1.1. Guidelines for Selection + + The IETF SHOULD select a start time from these three choices based on + the prior three meetings. The following table covers all + permutations of previous meetings held in person in Region A, B, or C + or remotely in the nights of one of those regions. + + +====================+==================+==============+===========+ + | Three Meetings Ago | Two Meetings Ago | Last Meeting | Online | + | | | | Selection | + +====================+==================+==============+===========+ + | Any | Any | In-Person A | A Night | + +--------------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+ + | Any | Online A Night | Online B | C Night | + | | | Night | | + +--------------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+ + | Online A Night | In-Person B | Online B | C Night | + | | | Night | | + +--------------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+ + | In-Person A | In-Person B | Online B | A Night | + | | | Night | | + +--------------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+ + | In-Person A | In-Person A | Online A | See below | + | | | Night | | + +--------------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+ + | Online A Night | Online B Night | Online C | A Night | + | | | Night | | + +--------------------+------------------+--------------+-----------+ + + Table 2 + + This table follows two basic guidelines: + + 1) Whenever a fully online meeting follows an in-person meeting, the + online meeting time is used that most disadvantages the + participants in the time zone where the in-person meeting was + held. + + 2) If multiple fully online meetings follow each other, the time + zone selection should be rotated based on the most recent time + zones in which the in-person meetings were held. + + The final case occurs in the rare event that back-to-back in-person + plenary meetings occur in the same region. In this case, find the + most recent meeting that was in neither 'A' (if in person) nor 'A + Night' (if fully online). If this meeting was in person in region + 'B', then the next meeting should be in 'B Night'. If it was remote + in 'B Night', the next meeting should be in 'C Night'. + +3.2. Number of Days and Total Hours per Day + + By 2021, fully online meetings were consistently held over 5 days + with roughly 6-hour meeting days. The day with the administrative + plenary, which concludes with multiple open mic sessions, sometimes + exceeded this limit. + + Six hours of online meetings, with two 30-minute breaks, was a + compromise between the physical limits of attending an online meeting + in an inconvenient time zone and the demand for many sessions with a + manageable number of conflicts. The IETF 109 feedback + [IETF109-SURVEY] indicated broad satisfaction with a 5-day meeting + but only medium satisfaction with the overall length of each day. + + The IETF did not seriously consider extending sessions into the + weekend before or after the main meeting week, although at IETF 108 + and subsequent meetings the Hackathon occupied the entire week before + (see [RFC9311]). + +3.3. Session/Break Length + + For fully online meetings, there are typically fewer sessions per day + than for in-person meetings, to keep the overall meeting day to + roughly 6 hours. With fewer sessions, chairs were offered only two + options for session length (instead of three). + + IETF 108, based on an indicated preference of the community, + scheduled 50- and 100-minute slots, with 10-minute breaks, in order + to keep the overall day length at 5 hours. This resulted in many + sessions going over time, which indicated that 10 minutes for breaks + is not practical. + + The survey after IETF 109 [IETF109-SURVEY] showed high satisfaction + with 60/120-minute session lengths and 30-minute breaks, and a + significant improvement in satisfaction over IETF 108. + + The longer breaks, while extending the day, provided adequate time + for meals, exercise, and "hallway" conversations using online tools. + +3.4. Number of Parallel Tracks + + In-person meetings are limited in the number of parallel tracks by + the number of meeting rooms, but online meetings are not. However, + more parallel tracks would increase the number of possible agenda + conflicts. + + If the total number of requested sessions exceeds the capacity of the + usual eight parallel tracks, it is possible for a fully online + meeting to simply use more tracks. If the number and length of + meeting days are seen as fixed, this decision is implicitly made by + the working group chairs requesting a certain number of sessions and + length. + + IETF 111 used nine parallel tracks for some of the sessions and + experienced slightly more conflicts in the agenda-scheduling process, + though there was no statistically significant increase in + dissatisfaction about conflicts in the survey [IETF111-SURVEY]. + + The IESG encouraged working group chairs to limit their session + requests and use interim meetings aggressively for focused work. + +4. Additional Considerations and Recommendations + +4.1. Full vs. Limited Agenda (and Interim Meetings) + + The IETF 108 meeting survey [IETF108-SURVEY] asked about the + structure of that meeting (full meeting) compared to that of IETF + 107, which hosted only a limited set of sessions followed by interims + in the weeks after. The structure of IETF 108 was preferred by 82%. + Respondents valued cross-participation and an intensive meeting week + for maintaining project momentum. + + Furthermore, a well-defined meeting time, rather than spreading many + interims over the whole year, can make deconflicting with other non- + IETF meetings easier. + + However, interim meetings can also help to reduce scheduling + conflicts during an IETF week and allow for a more optimal time slot + for the key participants. While interim meetings are less likely to + attract people with casual interest, they provide a good opportunity + for the most active participants of a group to have detailed + technical discussions and solve recorded issues efficiently. + +4.2. Flexibility of Time Usage + + This document recommends further experiments with reducing conflicts + by leveraging the increased flexibility of the online format. + + An in-person meeting must fit all sessions into an acceptable length + for international travel (usually roughly a week), but online + meetings do not have that constraint. + + Therefore, it would be possible to keep most regular working group + sessions within the usual 5 main meeting days but have some of the + more conflicted sessions in other dedicated time slots. As the + Hackathon for fully online meetings is usually held in the week + before the online plenary meeting [RFC9311], that week is already a + highly active week for many IETF participants and might provide an + opportunity to schedule a few selected sessions. + + This might work especially well for sessions that are of high + interest to a large part of the community, such as BoFs and dispatch + meetings, and therefore hard to schedule during the main IETF week. + + At IETF 112, the IESG ran an experiment where the administrative + plenary was scheduled on the Wednesday before the official session + week. The experiment report [IETF112-EXPERIMENT] found that it led + to a reduction in scheduling conflicts but also a slight drop in + attendance of the administrative plenary, partly due to insufficient + awareness. + +4.3. Inclusivity and Socializing + + Participation in the fully online meetings in 2021 was high and had a + stable per-country distribution, even though time zones were rotated. + This indicates that online meetings support a more consistent + geographic distribution of participants than in-person meetings, + where participation often fluctuates based on the location. + + However, online meetings do not provide an equivalent opportunity to + socialize. Despite significant investment in tools to foster hallway + conversations, many did not use those tools, whether due to ignorance + of them, dislike of the tools, or a preference for other activities + at home (including sleep and food) over hallway interactions. + + There was a decrease in submissions of new (-00) Internet-Drafts + during 2020 and 2021, although the overall number of draft + submissions remained stable; this decrease in new submissions might + have resulted from the loss of these interactions. Informal + conversations might be important to inspire new work. + +4.4. Experiments + + This document recommends further experiments with the meeting + structure. Often, only practical experience can answer open + questions. A given meeting SHOULD only experiment with one major + change at a time in order to be able to assess the outcome correctly. + Furthermore, the IESG SHOULD announce any such experiment well in + advance, so people can adjust to changes and potentially provide + feedback. + +4.5. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +4.6. Security Considerations + + This document has no security considerations. + +5. References + +5.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + + [RFC8719] Krishnan, S., "High-Level Guidance for the Meeting Policy + of the IETF", BCP 226, RFC 8719, DOI 10.17487/RFC8719, + February 2020, . + +5.2. Informative References + + [IETF107-FEEDBACK] + Daley, J., "IETF 107 Virtual Meeting Survey", 17 April + 2020, . + + [IETF108-SURVEY] + Daley, J., "IETF 108 Meeting Survey", 13 August 2020, + . + + [IETF109-SURVEY] + Daley, J., "IETF 109 Post-Meeting Survey", 7 December + 2020, + . + + [IETF111-SURVEY] + Daley, J., "IETF 111 post-meeting survey", 23 August 2021, + . + + [IETF112-EXPERIMENT] + IESG, "IETF 112 Plenary Experiment Evaluation", 4 February + 2022, . + + [INTERIM-SCHEDULE] + Cooper, A., "Subject: Post-IETF-107 Recommended Virtual + Interim Schedule", message to the Working Group Chairs + mailing list, 13 March 2020, + . + + [RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood, + Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, + Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF + Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020, + . + + [RFC9311] Eckel, C., "Running an IETF Hackathon", RFC 9311, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9311, September 2022, + . + +Acknowledgments + + Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Lars Eggert, Toerless Eckert, Charles + Eckel, Jason Livingood, Sanjeev Gupta, Dale Worley, and Mark + Nottingham for their reviews, and thanks to the many other people who + provided input and suggestions on the time zone discussion! + +Authors' Addresses + + Mirja Kühlewind + Ericsson + Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com + + + Martin Duke + Google + Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com -- cgit v1.2.3