Skip to main content
  • IETF 116 Highlights and other thoughts

    Mirja Kühlewind reports on a few highlights and some personal impressions from the IETF 116 Yokohama meeting held 25-31 March 2023.

    • Mirja KühlewindIESG Member
    7 Jun 2023
  • Banishing the bane of bufferbloat

    Bufferbloat affects everyone who uses the Internet, resulting in frustratingly slow web browsing, laggy video calls, and overall poor quality of experience for Internet users and there's a lot of work underway in the IETF to address it.

    • Bjørn Ivar TeigenIETF Participant
    23 May 2023
  • IETF 116 post-meeting survey

    IETF 116 Yokohama was held 25-31 March 2023 and the results of the post-meeting survey are now available on a web-based interactive dashboard.

    • Jay DaleyIETF Executive Director
    26 Apr 2023
  • Catching up on IETF 116

    Recordings are now available for sessions held during the IETF 115 meeting and the IETF Hackathon, where more than 1500 participants gathered in London and online 5-11 November 2022.

      1 Apr 2023
    • Messaging Layer Security: Secure and Usable End-to-End Encryption

      The IETF has approved publication of Messaging Layer Security (MLS), a new standard for end-to-end security that will make it easy for apps to provide the highest level of security to their users. End-to-end encryption is an increasingly important security feature in Internet applications. It keeps users’ information safe even if the cloud service they’re using has been breached.

      • Nick SullivanMLS Working Group Chair
      • Sean TurnerMLS Working Group Chair
      29 Mar 2023

    Filter by topic and date

    Filter by topic and date

    Reducing IETF Meeting Scheduling Conflicts

    • Alexa MorrisIETF Managing Director

    1 Apr 2023

    With many IETF participants active across a number of active working groups and limited time slots in an IETF meeting week, we aim to arrange sessions in the agenda to minimize conflicts that prevent participants from joining sessions that are of interest to them. In each post-meeting survey we ask meeting participants to comment on the scheduling conflicts they experienced in the meeting agenda and we then use this information to improve the meeting agenda.

    When WG chairs request a session for an IETF Meeting, they note what other groups to avoid a scheduling conflict with. Over time, an extensive set of scheduling conflicts to avoid has been collected for use in the meeting agenda planning tool. While this avoids many conflicts, meeting participants often note conflicts in the post-meeting survey that were not included in the original meeting session request submitted by the working group chair.

    Following IETF 115 London, we tallied conflicts reported by two or more participants in the post-meeting survey and shared that information directly with each working group chairs for them to review. For the first time, we are sharing the results of that process, including what action, if any, was taken.

    It’s important to note that some sessions are harder to deconflict than others. For example, BOFs may appeal to a broad set of participants. Similarly, conflicts related to more general sessions such as dispatch, irtfopen, and iabopen are harder to avoid.

    A copy of each session request is sent to the requesting working group, and the requests are also viewable in Datatracker to anyone in the community.  These session requests include the scheduling conflicts to avoid. If you believe that important conflict information is missing from the session request, please raise your concern with the working group chairs, ideally before the meeting. It's more helpful for a chair to understand who is raising which conflicts and why than to see the anonymized survey data after the meeting as that comes without context.

    We ask that working group chairs closely review their conflict lists for each session request they make, before each and every IETF meeting. If you have requested your session prior to the BOF submission deadline, we ask that you review the list of approved BOFs and, if you see one that may conflict with your working group, please send a note to prior to the publication of the preliminary agenda, so that we can update your conflict list.  

    If you have any suggestions for how we might improve the scheduling process, please feel free to send them to the Secretariat at or direct to the IESG at

    Share this page