IAOC Call at 10:00 AM EDT, Thursday, 4 September, 2008 Participants: Lynn St. Amour [Present] Fred Baker [Present; Acting Chair] Bob Hinden [Present] Russ Housley [Present] Ole Jacobsen [Present] Ed Juskevicius [Present] Olaf Kolkman [Present] Ray Pelletier [Present; IAD] Jonne Soininen [Not Present] Marshall Eubanks [Secretary] --------- Action Agenda 0. Minutes 2008-07-28 1. APs 2. 2009 Budget Update 3. IT Infrastructure (Tools) Development Plan & Priorities 2009 4. Meetings ------ Roll was called. Fred was selected as the acting Chair. 0. Minutes Fred moved approval of the 28 July, 2008 minutes, Russ seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. 1. APs Network Statement of Work - The IAD has given the volunteers a Last call until Monday 8 Sept to complete a review of SOW. RFP for NOC services will be issued the end of the month or the beginning of October. Volunteer Expenses - The language to the payment section of the host MOU was updated to make it clear that these expenses were included. Other expenses, such as vendor costs and expenses, connectivity expenses, shipping costs, NOC food and beverage, are also now clearly included. 2. 2009 Budget Update The IAD noted that on 2 October the IAOC will be approving a budget. We have this meeting, the 18th of September and October 2nd, to get our arms around it. Budget revenue assumptions - for 2008 we assumed 3500 paid attendees and we are going to fall below that. We are assuming 3390 for 2009. Given that, and that we will not be getting the usual hotel commissions for Hiroshima, the assumption is that the registration fee will be $675 and the student fees will be $200. For expenses, we are not saving money compared to 2008. In 2008 we changed Secretariats and improved the RFC Editor contract. This year we haven't seen any great savings from the phone budget - the IAOC has saved a little, but Marratech hasn't yet been adopted by the others. For Tools development work, there are educated estimates for expenses. As of this moment, the budget signals are the most expensive path. There was discussion of setting the meeting fee higher at a meeting where there was a lack of hotel commissions. However, the feeling was that this would be unfair for many reasons – people might decide that little extra bit was reason enough not to go and the local host might feel we were singling them out. 3. IT Infrastructure (Tools) Development Plan & Priorities 2009 It was noted that the process is to evaluate the ID tracker on ARO, the proprietary AMS platform, with the new database design, and make a decision around the San Francisco meeting. Henrik has taken the lead on the database design and using Glenn for review, aiming to have a description out by the end of September. Key features: The redesign was done to accommodate the new front and back ends. In doing so, we have architected it so that screen scraping is no longer necessary but people could just access the database with read only SQL commands. There is now a clear separation between the Apps and the Data in the Database. That makes it clear that the IETF Trust owns the data in the database regardless of who owns the code. Henrik tells us that he is working on a tool to convert databases for his day job and hopes to use that here. There are some tweaks to the database. The primary tweak is a multi-document ballot set. It turns out that that adds huge complexity to the database. The IESG agrees that we will no longer have these kinds of ballots. The next step is the development of the ID tracker with the new database using Django and ARO. AMS has agreed to do the ARO work on their own nickel. The back-of-the-envelope estimated maybe $20k. We have kicked around the idea of an IDIQ (Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity) contract, which means that you are not guaranteed to get any work. You may remember that ETSI when they bid on the RFP said that they had several IDIQ contracts in place and that was how they had flexibility to take on the software programming needed. We try and learn from our experience. We don't know how difficult this will be. If it is easy, maybe a volunteer could do it, and we would like to explore these ideas both in parallel. The goal is to have a tracker in both Django and ARO, let people use it and at IETF in San Francisco we can talk about the direction we should go. Olaf questioned the reason to do the parallel development for ARO and Django; is it because we need to do a flag day for the database? Russ said that’s partly true but it’s not the whole picture. This is only the community’s view of the tracker, but not the IESG view of the tracker. The IESG will be using the PERL tools with the database and we would be converting them over later. Russ would rather not pay for the IESG part of the tracker until we are sure which direction we are moving in. The IAOC did Django because we felt it might offer a new view of things. The question was asked: what if we don't want to spend the $20k. We wouldn’t necessarily be comparing apples to apples if we did that, but it’s the recommendation of the IETF Chair to do both. There is another reason - how do we test the database design without coding to it. Fleshing out and testing the database design is one aspect. Discussed next was whether the IAOC would want to continue to develop our own tools at our own expense versus the lock-in that we would get if we went with a vendor's tools. This is a decision between open source and closed source and all of the dimensions to that the decision. If we don't do this in an open way we can’t reach consensus. Once we reach consensus we have to decide the way forward with this list of tools. If we go Django, we are looking at $250k for this list of tools. We need to update the paragraph to make it clear that this isn’t just a fly off between implementations. 4. Meetings The IAD said registration is open for Minneapolis. For 2009 all of the Meetings are settled. In 2010 we are having discussions about the Europe meeting and a possible Host. I expect this to come to the IAOC in October. New Business Olaf discussed the RFC Editor model and asked for comments on the model. There is the subpoena/suit between Alcatel Lucent and Microsoft and Microsoft asked for 12 different categories of information. They will get a dump of the specific WG mail lists and all of the I-Ds and RFCs that came out of it. There are significant costs to the Secretariat and that is part of their contract. We can ask to see if the court can reimburse it. The due date is September 15th. The IAD will look into asking them to reimburse us for that expense. In previous subpoenas we have never gotten reimbursement. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 am.