CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Luc Boulianne/McGill University Minutes of the Integrated Information Architecture BOF (IIA) Introduction - Phill Gross Phill Gross took a few moments to introduce the reasons behind the creation of this group: A year or so ago, the IESG was hit all at once with the creation of a large set of working groups in the general areas of network information discovery, retrieval, and user information handling. It became apparent that many of these working groups were related, or should be. There appears to be two ways in which the IETF operates: top-down and bottom-up. 1. Top-down: (or pro-active) such as the IPNG. 2. Bottom-up: the usual way things are done. Usually the `right' things come out of this approach. And yet, it would appear that sometimes, the area directors are still needed for pro-active planning. When the working groups were chartered, they were made jointly part of an ``Internet Information Architecture'' (IIA) activity. The expectation was that these groups would work together, as well as on their own primary foci, and would do so under the joint supervision of the User Services and Applications Areas. Phill suggested that the area directors now write a new overview of the IIA, providing a framework only. Because of the importance of this issue, Phill suggested that the IESG request a working group be charged to create an IIA architecture framework definition citing as an example: IPNG (Allison Mankin and Scott Bradner). Summary of the Issues - John Klensin Working groups were formed, work was done and documents began to appear. Some concluded that there was a lack of coordination among the working groups, but that the current meeting is an effort to reconcile this lack. IIA is comprised of several working groups, overlapping work with an overlapping cast of characters. The working groups should be coordinated technically, but it often appears that they are not. Characteristics of the IIA working groups and their membership: o Very expert in several types of work. o There is, however, some evidence that, in protocol design areas, they may be moving out of their depth or succumbing to the Not Invented Here syndrome. o There are interactions with the ``real world'' that one must consider, e.g., librarians and other information specialists, external standards. o Most of the groups seem to have nearly the same membership, with topics and issues flowing back and forth between them. Finally, there were these questions to ask the group: o Is the current model as efficient as possible? If it is not, what can be done to improve things? o Is there a structural way of going about this? o What about working group functional boundaries? o What is the definition of a functional boundary? o What can be done to not break anything that is now working, while we try to increase efficiency and productivity? A suggestion was made by the group that multiple solutions to this problem (i.e. working groups) which have trivial differences, should be merged into a homogeneous solution. This would help to avoid diluting the merged efforts. User Services Area - Joyce K. Reynolds Joyce believes that it is important to make sure there is communication between areas. A meeting of the User Services Area Council (USAC) was held on Tuesday evening. USAC observed that developers and users are well represented in these gatherings, but operators (information providers) are not. The following items are lacking: o Tools for maintaining information o Support tools o How does one share information o An adequate level of cooperation o An adequate level of operational effectiveness Working Group Chair Input o It was suggested that a small group of closely interacting people could keep an eye on working groups in different IETF areas. For example, ``multicasting'' could be used for information directories. A mechanism is needed to promote this inter-area information diffusion. Possible functions of this group of inter-working group communicators might be to monitor the minutes of various working groups or to bring up ideas, when appropriate, in other working groups. o Some resistance towards inter-working group communicators was felt. It was pointed out that the working group is the only place for this kind of discussion. The working group is there a) to Review/Refine and b) for the Community Buy-in. o The Applications Area Directorate (APPLES), and its mailing lists, should attempt to provide a pro-active exchange of information. o There is an overlap among working groups and this might be wasteful. o There appears to be a lack of coordination within the IETF. Yet, this work requires that the IETF do research that breaks new ground. This means that some lack of focus may be required to get the best ideas out. o The example of Data Elements (IAFA) was brought up to support the need for communication among the working groups. Data elements are required by many working groups, and it is a very difficult problem in itself. o It was suggested that working group chairs get together at the start of each IETF and discuss the ``Hot Topics.'' The chair would then bring these to the attention of their working groups. General Discussion o There was some concern that extra (needless) bureaucratic structure might be created. o Multiple groups developing different solutions to a common problem is not a bad thing. o Sometimes the expertise to solve a problem is in another group, and both its availability and the knowledge itself are unknown to the group that needs it. o Possibly, vision documents could be drafted to help guide and measure work done. o It was felt that a ``Hot Topics'' discussion might not work, as there is so little time as it is. Many felt it would be worth the time. o Possibly, Five Year Planning documents could help guide working groups. Some thought that the IAB does this to some extent. Some felt that this would inhibit better solutions. o It was suggested that working group tutorials be set up to bring new members up to speed, including those from other working groups who want to take advantage of local expertise. Possibly, the old tradition of two minute introductions to all working groups could be restored to the opening plenary. o It was pointed out that Area Reports are written, but few people take the time to read them. It was also pointed out that these Area Reports do not point out the ``Hot Spots''; the IESG might be overloaded already. o A road map showing the interrelation of the various groups might prove to be useful. o The IETF is getting larger and larger. Communications is becoming a problem. Conclusion Using the APPLES mailing list for further discussion, it should be determined 1) how to improve communications, and 2) what structure might work to propagate this newly acquired information. Attendees Steve Alexander stevea@lachman.com Harald Alvestrand Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Jules Aronson aronson@nlm.nih.gov Luc Boulianne lucb@cs.mcgill.ca James Conklin jbc@bitnic.educom.edu John Curran jcurran@nic.near.net Alan Emtage bajan@bunyip.com Urs Eppenberger eppenberger@switch.ch Sallie Fellows sallie@ed.unh.edu Jill Foster Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk Paul Francis Francis@thumper.bellcore.com Ned Freed ned@innosoft.com Kevin Gamiel kgamiel@cnidr.org Tony Genovese genovese@es.net Judith Grass grass@cnri.reston.va.us Terry Gray gray@cac.washington.edu Phillip Gross pgross@ans.net Martyne Hallgren martyne@mitchell.cit.cornell.edu Deborah Hamilton debbieh@internic.net Alf Hansen Alf.Hansen@uninett.no Roland Hedberg Roland.Hedberg@rc.tudelft.nl Marco Hernandez marco@cren.net Russ Hobby rdhobby@ucdavis.edu Jeroen Houttuin houttuin@rare.nl Tim Howes tim@umich.edu Richard Huber rvh@ds.internic.net Christian Huitema Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr Erik Huizer Erik.Huizer@SURFnet.nl Steve Kille S.Kille@isode.com John Klensin Klensin@infoods.unu.edu Jim Knowles jknowles@binky.arc.nasa.gov Barry Leiner leiner@nsipo.nasa.gov Ben Levy seven@ftp.com Clifford Lynch calur@uccmvsa.ucop.edu Glenn Mansfield glenn@aic.co.jp April Marine april@atlas.arc.nasa.gov Larry Masinter masinter@parc.xerox.com Mitra mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu Robert Moskowitz 3858921@mcimail.com Chris Newman chrisn+@cmu.edu Masataka Ohta mohta@cc.titech.ac.jp Lars-Gunnar Olsson Lars-Gunnar.Olsson@data.slu.se Scott Paisley paisley@central.bldrdoc.gov Rakesh Patel rapatel@pilot.njin.net Pete Percival percival@indiana.edu Marsha Perrott perrott@prep.net Karen Petraska-Veum karen.veum@gsfc.nasa.gov Cecilia Preston cpreston@info.berkeley.edu Joyce K. Reynolds jkrey@isi.edu Srinivas Sataluri sri@internic.net Richard Schmalgemeier rgs@merit.edu Rickard Schoultz schoultz@sunet.se Henry Sinnreich hsinnreich@mcimail.com Mark Smith mcs@umich.edu Karen Sollins sollins@lcs.mit.edu Chris Weider clw@bunyip.com Jackie Wilson Jackie.Wilson@msfc.nasa.gov