Skip to main content
  • IETF 117 Highlights

    IETF 117 is a few weeks behind us and Dhruv Dhody, IAB Member and liaison to the IESG, took the opportunity to report on a few highlights and some impressions.

    • Dhruv DhodyIAB Member and liaison to the IESG
    21 Aug 2023
  • Proposed response to meeting venue consultations and the complex issues raised

    The IETF Administration LLC recently sought feedback from the community on the possibility of holding an IETF Meeting in the cities of Beijing, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur and Shenzhen, with received feedback including views that were well expressed and well argued but strongly conflicting. The IETF LLC has considered this feedback in-depth and now seeks community feedback on its proposed response.

    • Jay DaleyIETF Executive Director
    21 Aug 2023
  • Submit Birds of a Feather session proposals for IETF 118

    Now's the time to submit Birds of a Feather session (BOFs) ideas for the IETF 118 meeting 4-10 November 2023, with proposals due by 8 September.

      16 Aug 2023
    • Applied Networking Research Workshop 2023 Review

      More than 250 participants gathered online and in person for ANRW 2023, the academic workshop that provides a forum for researchers, vendors, network operators, and the Internet standards community to present and discuss emerging results in applied networking research.

      • Maria ApostolakiANRW Program co-chair
      • Francis YanANRW Program co-chair
      16 Aug 2023
    • IETF 117 post-meeting survey

      IETF 117 San Francisco was held 22-28 July 2023 and the results of the post-meeting survey are now available on a web-based interactive dashboard.

      • Jay DaleyIETF Executive Director
      11 Aug 2023

    Filter by topic and date

    Filter by topic and date

    IETF 112 Plenary Experiment Evaluation

    • Internet Engineering Steering Group

    4 Feb 2022

    For the IETF 112 meeting, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) conducted an experiment by holding the plenary on the Wednesday before other IETF sessions occurred, in order to reduce session conflicts during the week.

    When we announced the experiment, we announced five evaluation criteria. All of those criteria were imperfect, and there is no target number of improved metrics to declare the experiment a success. Nevertheless, the results are below.

    1. An improvement in survey responses reporting session conflicts compared to previous IETF online meetings.

    The survey data don’t see any clear change in conflicts.

    IETF 112 Conflicts

    It is possible that the large 2-5 and 6-10 bins are masking some improvement, but the IESG concludes that there is no change in the survey responses as a result of this experiment.

    2. Positive response to a new survey question about subjective satisfaction with the format change.

    The survey indicated a mean score of 3.7 on satisfaction with "Holding the plenary the week before the IETF meeting", with a roughly 3:1 satisfied:dissatisfied ratio.

    IETF 112 survey format change satisfaction

    The IESG concludes that there is strong community sentiment in favor of the change, although it is possible that the positive responses are concentrated among those with no intention of attending the plenary, and the negatives among the minority who usually do attend.

    3. Elimination of a ninth track, and a reduction in formal conflicts in the final agenda compared to previous online meetings.

    There was no ninth track. The scheduling tool, which has not remained completely stable over time, tracks several different types of conflicts based on information provided in session requests.

    IETF Meeting Chair Conflicts Area Director Conflicts Key Participant Conflicts Technology Overlaps
    108 0 1 1 0
    109 0 3 2 0
    110 0 6 2 3
    111 2 2 2 0
    112 2 1 0 0

    Other efforts to reduce conflicts over this time, including a variable number of session requests, further complicate any conclusion. Nevertheless, the IESG concludes that the plenary experiment did coincide with fewer conflicts reported by the software.

    4. Little or no reduction in plenary attendance (< 15%) compared to other online plenaries in European time zones (i.e. IETF 108 and 110) 

    There were 299 attendees at the IETF 112 plenary, a drop in absolute terms of 23% from IETF 110 and 32% from 108. In relative terms to the number of attendees:

    Proportion of Meeting Attendees at Plenary

    The IESG concludes that the experiment did have a significant negative impact on plenary attendance, although future attempts might reduce the extent that participants are surprised by the change and unintentionally miss the plenary.

    5. The subjective experience of the IESG and Secretariat in attempting to minimize conflicts during IETF 112.

    Several members of the IESG expressed that the IETF 112 scheduling process was considerably easier and required fewer tradeoffs. Some Area Directors think that this is mostly due not to the experiment, but instead because of soft limitations on session requests instituted before IETF 112.


    The IESG’s consensus is that the plenary experiment did coincide with a reduction in scheduling conflicts, and most IESG members believe the experiment was an important cause. However, we also believe that the attendance drop at the IETF 112 plenary was unacceptable, although it might not be a permanent feature of this innovation.

    We do not believe that the experiment results justify changing standard procedure for fully remote meetings, though we may conduct further experiments to reduce the disparity in attendance.

    Regardless of this experiment outcome, the IESG fully intends for hybrid meetings, including IETF 113, to hold plenaries during the meeting week.


    Thanks to Liz Flynn, Amy Vezza, and Jay Daley for helping to collect the data.

    Share this page