rfc9307
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) N. ten Oever
Request for Comments: 9307 University of Amsterdam
Category: Informational C. Cath
ISSN: 2070-1721 University of Cambridge
M. Kühlewind
Ericsson
C. S. Perkins
University of Glasgow
September 2022
Report from the IAB Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID) 2021
Abstract
The "Show me the numbers: Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID)"
workshop was convened by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from
November 29 to December 2, 2021 and hosted by the IN-SIGHT.it project
at the University of Amsterdam; however, it was converted to an
online-only event. The workshop was organized into two discussion
parts with a hackathon activity in between. This report summarizes
the workshop's discussion and identifies topics that warrant future
work and consideration.
Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are
those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB
views and positions.
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 Architecture Board (IAB)
and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not 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/rfc9307.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Workshop Scope and Discussion
2.1. Tools, Data, and Methods
2.2. Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
2.3. Community and Diversity
2.4. Publications, Process, and Decision Making
2.5. Environmental Sustainability
3. Hackathon Report
4. Position Papers
4.1. Tools, Data, and Methods
4.2. Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
4.3. Community and Diversity
4.4. Publications, Process, and Decision Making
4.5. Environmental Sustainability
5. Informative References
Appendix A. Data Taxonomy
Appendix B. Program Committee
Appendix C. Workshop Participants
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The IETF, as an international Standards Developing Organization
(SDO), hosts a diverse set of data about the IETF's history and
development, current standardization activities, Internet protocols,
and the institutions that comprise the IETF. A large portion of this
data is publicly available, yet it is underutilized as a tool to
inform the work in the IETF or the broader research community that is
focused on topics like Internet governance and trends in information
and communication technologies (ICT) standard setting.
The aim of the "IAB Workshop on Analyzing IETF Data (AID) 2021"
workshop was to study how IETF data is currently used, to understand
what insights can be drawn from that data, and to explore open
questions around how that data may be further used in the future.
These questions can inform a research agenda drawing from IETF data
that fosters further collaborative work among interested parties,
ranging from academia and civil society to industry and IETF
leadership.
2. Workshop Scope and Discussion
The workshop was organized with two all-group discussion slots at the
beginning and the end of the workshop. In between, the workshop
participants organized hackathon activities based on topics
identified during the initial discussion and in submitted position
papers. The following topic areas were identified and discussed.
2.1. Tools, Data, and Methods
The IETF holds a wide range of data sources. The main ones used are
the mailinglist archives [Mail-Arch], RFCs [IETF-RFCs], and the
datatracker [Datatracker]. The latter provides information on
participants, authors, meeting proceedings, minutes, and more
[Data-Overview]. Furthermore, there are statistics for the IETF
websites [IETF-Statistics], the working group Github repositories,
and the IETF survey data [Survey-Data]. There was discussion about
the utility of download statistics for the RFCs themselves from
different repos.
There is a wide range of tools to analyze this data produced by IETF
participants or researchers interested in the work of the IETF. Two
projects that presented their work at the workshop were BigBang
[BigBang] and Sodestream's IETFdata [ietfdata] library. The RFC
Prolog Database was described in a submitted paper; see
[Prolog-Database]. These projects could provide additional insight
into existing IETF statistics [ArkkoStats] and datatracker statistics
[DatatrackerStats], e.g., gender-related information. Privacy issues
and the implications of making such data publicly available were
discussed as well.
The datatracker itself is a community tool that welcomes
contributions; for example, for additions to the existing interfaces
or the statistics page directly, see the Datatracker Database
Overview [Data-Overview]. At the time of the workshop, instructions
about how to set up a local development environment could be found at
IAB AID Workshop Data Resources [DataResources]. Questions or
discussion about the datatracker and possible enhancements can be
sent to tools-discuss@ietf.org.
2.2. Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
A large portion of the submitted position papers indicated interest
in researching questions about industry control in the
standardization process (as opposed to individual contributions in a
personal capacity), where industry control covers both a) technical
contributions and the ability to successfully standardize these
contributions and b) competition on leadership roles. To assess
these questions, investigating participant affiliations, including
"indirect" affiliations (e.g., by tracking funding and changes in
affiliation) was discussed. The need to model company
characteristics or stakeholder groups was also discussed.
Discussion about the analysis of IETF data shows that affiliation
dynamics are hard to capture due to the specifics of how the data is
entered and because of larger social dynamics. On the side of IETF
data capture, affiliation is an open text field that causes people to
write their affiliation down in different ways (e.g., capitalization,
space, word separation, etc). A common data format could contribute
to analyses that compare SDO performance and behavior of actors
inside and across standards bodies. To help with this, a draft data
model was developed during the hackathon portion of the workshop; the
data model can be found in Appendix A.
Furthermore, there is the issue of mergers, acquisitions, and
subsidiary companies. There is no authoritative exogenous source of
variation for affiliation changes, so hand-collected and curated data
is used to analyze changes in affiliation over time. While this
approach is imperfect, conclusions can be drawn from the data. For
example, in the case of mergers or acquisition where a small
organization joins a large organization, this results in a
statistically significant increase in likelihood of an individual
being put in a working group chair position (see the document by
Baron and Kanevskaia [LEADERSHIP-POSITIONS]).
2.3. Community and Diversity
The workshop participants were highly interested in using existing
data to better understand who the current IETF community is. They
were also interested in the community's diversity and how to
potentially increase it and thereby increase inclusivity, e.g.,
understanding if there are certain factors that "drive people away"
and why. Inclusivity and transparency about the standardization
process are generally important to keep the Internet and its
development process viable. As commented during the workshop
discussion, when measuring and evaluating different angles of
diversity, it is also important to understand the actual goals that
are intended when increasing diversity, e.g., in order to increase
competence (mainly technical diversity from different companies and
stakeholder groups) or relevance (also regional diversity and
international footprint).
The discussion on community and diversity spanned from methods that
draw from novel text mining, time series clustering, graph mining,
and psycholinguistic approaches to understand the consensus mechanism
to more speculative approaches about what it would take to build a
feminist Internet. The discussion also covered the data needed to
measure who is in the community and how diverse it is.
The discussion highlighted that part of the challenge is defining
what diversity means and how to measure it, or as one participant
highlighted, defining "who the average IETFer is". There was a
question about what to do about missing data or non-participating or
underrepresented communities, like women, individuals from the
African continent, and network operators. In terms of how IETF data
is structured, various researchers mentioned that it is hard to track
conversations because mail threads split, merge, and change. The
ICANN-at-large model came up as an example of how to involve relevant
stakeholders in the IETF that are currently not present. Conversely,
it is also interesting for outside communities (especially policy
makers) to get a sense of who the IETF community is and keep them
updated.
The human element of the community and diversity was highlighted. In
order to understand the IETF community's diversity, it is important
to talk to people (beyond text analysis). In order to ensure
inclusivity, individual participants must make an effort to, as one
participant recounted, tell them their participation is valuable.
2.4. Publications, Process, and Decision Making
A number of submissions focused on the RFC publication process, on
the development of standards and other RFCs in the IETF, and on how
the IETF makes decisions. This included work on technical decisions
about the content of the standards, on procedural and process
decisions, and on questions around how we can understand, model, and
perhaps improve the standards process. Some of the work considered
what makes an RFC successful, how RFCs are used and referenced, and
what we can learn about the importance of a topic by studying the
RFCs, Internet-Drafts, and email discussions.
There were three sets of questions to consider in this area. The
first question related to the success and failure of standards and
considered:
* What makes a successful and good RFC?
* What makes the process of making RFCs successful?
* How are RFCs used and referenced once published?
Discussion considered how to better understand the path from an
Internet-Draft to an RFC, to see if there are specific factors that
lead to successful development of an Internet-Draft into an RFC.
Participants explored the extent to which this depends on the
seniority and experience of the authors, on the topic and IETF area,
on the extent and scope of mailing list discussion, and other
factors, to understand whether success of an Internet-Draft can be
predicted and whether interventions can be developed to increase the
likelihood of success for work.
The second question focused on decision making.
* How does the IETF make design decisions?
* What are the bottlenecks in effective decision making?
* When is a decision made? And what is the decision?
Difficulties here lie in capturing decisions and the results of
consensus calls early in the process, and understanding the factors
that lead to effective decision making.
Finally, there were questions regarding what can be learned about
protocols by studying IETF publications, processes, and decision
making. For example:
* Are there insights to be gained around how security concerns are
discussed and considered in the development of standards?
* Is it possible to verify correctness of protocols and detect
ambiguities?
* What can be learned by extracting insights from implementations
and activities on implementation efforts?
Answers to these questions will come from analysis of IETF emails,
RFCs and Internet-Drafts, meeting minutes, recordings, Github data,
and external data such as surveys, etc.
2.5. Environmental Sustainability
The final discussion session considered environmental sustainability.
Topics included what the IETF's role with respect to climate change,
both in terms of what is the environmental impact of the way the IETF
develops standards and in terms of what is the environmental impact
of the standards the IETF develops.
Discussion started by considering how sustainable IETF meetings are,
focusing on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions IETF
meetings are responsible for and how can we make the IETF more
sustainable. Analysis looked at the home locations of participants,
meeting locations, and carbon footprint of air travel and remote
attendance to estimate the CO2 costs of an IETF meeting. While the
analysis is ongoing, initial results suggest that the costs of
holding multiple in-person IETF meetings per year are likely
unsustainable in terms of CO2 emission.
The extent to which climate impacts are considered during the
development and standardization of Internet protocols was discussed.
RFCs and Internet-Drafts of active working groups were reviewed for
relevant keywords to highlight the extent to which climate change,
energy efficiency, and related topics were considered in the design
of Internet protocols. This review revealed the limited extent to
which these topics have been considered. There is ongoing work to
get a fuller picture by reviewing meeting minutes and mail archives
as well, but initial results show only limited consideration of these
important issues.
3. Hackathon Report
The middle two days of the workshop were organized as a hackathon.
The aims of the hackathon were to 1) acquaint people with the
different data sources and analysis methods, 2) seek to answer some
of the questions that came up during presentations on the first day
of the workshop, and 3) foster collaboration among researchers to
grow a community of IETF data researchers.
At the end of Day 1, the plenary presentation day, people were
invited to divide themselves into groups and select their own
respective facilitators. All groups had their own work space and
could use their own communication methods and channels. Furthermore,
daily check-ins were organized during the two hackathon days. On the
final day, the hackathon groups presented their work in a plenary
session.
According to the co-chairs, the objectives of the hackathon have been
met, and the output significantly exceeded expectations. It allowed
more interaction than academic conferences and produced some actual
research results by people who had not collaborated before the
workshop.
Future workshops that choose to integrate a hackathon could consider
asking participants to submit issues and questions beforehand
(potentially as part of the position papers or the sign-up process)
to facilitate the formation of groups.
4. Position Papers
4.1. Tools, Data, and Methods
Sebastian Benthall, "Using Complex Systems Analysis to Identify
Organizational Interventions" [COMPLEX-SYSTEMS]
Stephen McQuistin and Colin Perkins, "The ietfdata Library"
[ietfdata-Library]
Marc Petit-Huguenin, "The RFC Prolog Database" [Prolog-Database]
Jari Arkko, "Observations about IETF process measurements"
[MEASURING-IETF-PROCESSES]
4.2. Observations on Affiliation and Industry Control
Justus Baron and Olia Kanevskaia, "Competition for Leadership
Positions in Standards Development Organizations"
[LEADERSHIP-POSITIONS]
Nick Doty, "Analyzing IETF Data: Changing affiliations"
[ANALYZING-AFFILIATIONS]
Don Le, "Analysing IETF Data Position Paper" [ANALYSING-IETF]
Elizaveta Yachmeneva, "Research Proposal" [RESEARCH-PROPOSAL]
4.3. Community and Diversity
Priyanka Sinha, Michael Ackermann, Pabitra Mitra, Arvind Singh, and
Amit Kumar Agrawal, "Characterizing the IETF through its consensus
mechanisms" [CONSENSUS-MECHANISMS]
Mallory Knodel, "Would feminists have built a better internet?"
[FEMINIST-INTERNET]
Wes Hardaker and Genevieve Bartlett, "Identifying temporal trends in
IETF participation" [TEMPORAL-TRENDS]
Lars Eggert, "Who is the Average IETF Participant?"
[AVERAGE-PARTICIPANT]
Emanuele Tarantino, Justus Baron, Bernhard Ganglmair, Nicola Persico,
and Timothy Simcoe, "Representation is Not Sufficient for Selecting
Gender Diversity" [GENDER-DIVERSITY]
4.4. Publications, Process, and Decision Making
Michael Welzl, Carsten Griwodz, and Safiqul Islam, "Understanding
Internet Protocol Design Decisions" [DESIGN-DECISIONS]
Ignacio Castro et al., "Characterising the IETF through the lens of
RFC deployment" [RFC-DEPLOYMENT]
Carsten Griwodz, Safiqul Islam, and Michael Welzl, "The Impact of
Continuity" [CONTINUITY]
Paul Hoffman, "RFCs Change" [RFCs-CHANGE]
Xue Li, Sara Magliacane, and Paul Groth, "The Challenges of
Cross-Document Coreference Resolution in Email"
[CROSS-DOC-COREFERENCE]
Amelia Andersdotter, "Project in time series analysis: e-mailing
lists" [E-MAILING-LISTS]
Mark McFadden, "A Position Paper by Mark McFadden" [POSITION-PAPER]
4.5. Environmental Sustainability
Christoph Becker, "Towards Environmental Sustainability with the
IETF" [ENVIRONMENTAL]
Daniel Migault, "CO2eq: Estimating Meetings' Air Flight CO2
Equivalent Emissions: An Illustrative Example with IETF meetings"
[CO2eq]
5. Informative References
[ANALYSING-IETF]
Article 19, "Analysing IETF Position Paper",
<https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
Le.pdf>.
[ANALYZING-AFFILIATIONS]
Doty, N., "Analyzing IETF Data: Changing affiliations",
September 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
uploads/2021/11/Doty.pdf>.
[ArkkoStats]
"Document Statistics",
<https://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats.html>.
[AVERAGE-PARTICIPANT]
Eggert, L., "Who is the Average IETF Participant?",
November 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
uploads/2021/11/Eggert.pdf>.
[BigBang] BigBang, "Welcome to BigBang's documentation!",
<https://bigbang-py.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>.
[CO2eq] Migault, D., "CO2eq: Estimating Meetings' Air Flight CO2
Equivalent Emissions: An Illustrative Example with IETF
meeting", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
uploads/2021/11/Migault.pdf>.
[COMPLEX-SYSTEMS]
Benthall, S., "Using Complex Systems Analysis to Identify
Organizational Interventions", 2021, <https://www.iab.org/
wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Benthall.pdf>.
[CONSENSUS-MECHANISMS]
Sinha, P., Ackermann, M., Mitra, P., Singh, A., and A.
Kumar Agrawal, "Characterizing the IETF through its
consensus mechanisms", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/
IAB-uploads/2021/11/Sinha.pdf>.
[CONTINUITY]
Griwodz, C., Islam, S., and M. Welzl, "The Impact of
Continuity", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
uploads/2021/11/Griwodz.pdf>.
[CROSS-DOC-COREFERENCE]
Li, X., Magliacane, S., and P. Groth, "The Challenges of
Cross-Document Coreference Resolution in Email",
<https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
Groth.pdf>.
[Data-Overview]
"Datatracker Database Overview", for the IAB AID Workshop,
<https://notes.ietf.org/iab-aid-datatracker-database-
overview#>.
[DataResources]
"IAB AID Workshop Data Resources",
<https://notes.ietf.org/iab-aid-data-resources#>.
[Datatracker]
IETF, "Datatracker", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/>.
[DatatrackerStats]
IETF, "Statistics", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/>.
[DESIGN-DECISIONS]
Welzl, M., Griwodz, C., and S. Islam, "Understanding
Internet Protocol Design Decisions", <https://www.iab.org/
wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Welzl.pdf>.
[E-MAILING-LISTS]
Andersdotter, A., "Project in time series analysis:
e-mailing lists", May 2018, <https://www.iab.org/wp-
content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Andersdotter.pdf>.
[ENVIRONMENTAL]
Becker, C., "Towards Environmental Sustainability with the
IETF", <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
uploads/2021/11/Becker.pdf>.
[FEMINIST-INTERNET]
Knodel, M., "Would feminists have built a better
internet?", September 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-
content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Knodel.pdf>.
[GENDER-DIVERSITY]
Baron, J., Ganglmair, B., Persico, N., Simcoe, T., and E.
Tarantino, "Representation is Not Sufficient for Selecting
Gender Diversity", August 2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-
content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Tarantino.pdf>.
[IETF-RFCs]
IETF, "RFCs", <https://www.ietf.org/standards/rfcs/>.
[IETF-Statistics]
IETF, "Web analytics",
<https://www.ietf.org/policies/web-analytics/>.
[ietfdata] "IETF Data", Internet Protocols Laboratory, commit
c53bf15, August 2022,
<https://github.com/glasgow-ipl/ietfdata>.
[ietfdata-Library]
McQuistin, S. and C. Perkins, "The ietfdata Library",
<https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
McQuistin.pdf>.
[LEADERSHIP-POSITIONS]
Baron, J. and O. Kanevskaia, "Competition for Leadership
Positions in Standards Development Organizations", October
2021, <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
Baron.pdf>.
[Mail-Arch]
IETF, "Mail Archive",
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/>.
[MEASURING-IETF-PROCESSES]
Arkko, J., "Observations about IETF process measurements",
<https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
Arkko.pdf>.
[POSITION-PAPER]
McFadden, M., "A Position Paper", <https://www.iab.org/wp-
content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/McFadden.pdf>.
[Prolog-Database]
Huguenin, P., "The RFC Prolog Database", September 2021,
<https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Petit-
Huguenin.txt>.
[RESEARCH-PROPOSAL]
Yachmeneva, E., "Research Proposal", <https://www.iab.org/
wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/Yachmeneva.pdf>.
[RFC-DEPLOYMENT]
Castro, I., Healey, P., Iqbal, W., Karan, M., Khare, P.,
McQuistin, S., Perkins, C., Purver, M., Qadir, J., and G.
Tyson, "Characterising the IETF through the lens of RFC
deployment", November 2021,
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3487552.3487821>.
[RFCs-CHANGE]
Hoffman, P., "RFCs Change", September 2021,
<https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
Hoffman.pdf>.
[Survey-Data]
IETF, "IETF Community Survey 2021", 11 August 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-community-survey-2021/>.
[TEMPORAL-TRENDS]
Hardaker, W. and G. Bartlett, "Identifying temporal trends
in IETF participation", September 2021,
<https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2021/11/
Hardaker.pdf>.
Appendix A. Data Taxonomy
A Draft Data Taxonomy for SDO Data:
Organization:
Organization Subsidiary
Time
Email domain
Website domain
Size
Revenue, annual
Number of employees
Org - Affiliation Category (Labels) ; 1 : N
Association
Advertising Company
Chipmaker
Content Distribution Network
Content Providers
Consulting
Cloud Provider
Cybersecurity
Financial Institution
Hardware vendor
Internet Registry
Infrastructure Company
Networking Equipment Vendor
Network Service Provider
Regional Standards Body
Regulatory Body
Research and Development Institution
Software Provider
Testing and Certification
Telecommunications Provider
Satellite Operator
Org - Stakeholder Group : 1 - 1
Academia
Civil Society
Private Sector -- including industry consortia and associations;
state-owned and government-funded businesses
Government
Technical Community (IETF, ICANN, ETSI, 3GPP, oneM2M, etc)
Intergovernmental organization
SDO:
Membership Types (SDO)
Members (Organizations for some, individuals for others...)
Membership organization
Regional SDO
ARIB
ATIS
CCSA
ETSI
TSDSI
TTA
TTC
Consortia
Country of Origin:
Country Code
Number of Participants
Patents
Organization
Authors - 1 : N - Persons/Participants
Time
Region
Patent Pool
Standard Essential Patent
If so, for which standard
Participant (An individual person)
Name
1: N - Emails
Time start / time end
1 : N : Affiliation
Organization
Position
Time start / end
1 : N : Affiliation - SDO
Position
SDO
Time
Email Domain (personal domain)
(Contribution data is in other tables)
Document
Status of Document
Internet Draft
Work Item
Standard
Author -
Name
Affiliation - Organization
Person/Participant
(Affiliation from Authors only?)
Data Source - Provenance for any data imported from an external data set
Meeting
Time
Place
Agenda
Registrations
Name
Email
Affiliation
Appendix B. Program Committee
The workshop Program Committee members were Niels ten Oever (Chair,
University of Amsterdam), Colin Perkins (Chair, IRTF, University of
Glasgow), Corinne Cath (Chair, Oxford Internet Institute), Mirja
Kühlewind (IAB, Ericsson), Zhenbin Li (IAB, Huawei), and Wes Hardaker
(IAB, USC/ISI).
Appendix C. Workshop Participants
The Workshop Participants were Bernhard Ganglmair, Carsten Griwodz,
Christoph Becker, Colin Perkins, Corinne Cath, Daniel Migault, Don
Le, Effy Xue Li, Elizaveta Yachmeneva, Francois Ortolan, Greg Wood,
Ignacio Castro, Jari Arkko, Justus Baron, Karen O'Donoghue, Lars
Eggert, Mallory Knodel, Marc Petit-Huguenin, Mark McFadden, Michael
Welzl, Mirja Kühlewind, Nick Doty, Niels ten Oever, Priyanka Sinha,
Safiqul Islam, Sebastian Benthall, Stephen McQuistin, Wes Hardaker,
and Zhenbin Li.
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
Jari Arkko
Deborah Brungard
Lars Eggert
Wes Hardaker
Cullen Jennings
Mallory Knodel
Mirja Kühlewind
Zhenbin Li
Tommy Pauly
David Schinazi
Russ White
Quin Wu
Jiankang Yao
Acknowledgments
The Program Committee wishes to extend its thanks to Cindy Morgan for
logistics support and to Kate Pundyk for note-taking.
We would like to thank the Ford Foundation for their support that
made participation of Corinne Cath, Kate Pundyk, and Mallory Knodel
possible (grant number, 136179, 2020).
Efforts put in this workshop by Niels ten Oever were made possible
through funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) through grant
MVI.19.032 as part of the program 'Maatschappelijk Verantwoord
Innoveren (MVI)'.
Efforts in the organization of this workshop by Colin Perkins were
supported in part by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council under grant EP/S036075/1.
Authors' Addresses
Niels ten Oever
University of Amsterdam
Email: mail@nielstenoever.net
Corinne Cath
University of Cambridge
Email: corinnecath@gmail.com
Mirja Kühlewind
Ericsson
Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com
Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow
Email: csp@csperkins.org
ERRATA
