 |
 |
 |
Minutes of the 13 May Teleconference were approved.
It was noted that the question of what 'sources' were used to review a IETF document for 'quality' has been raised on the problem-statement list, and it was noted that this the IAB Security Considerations document is being used as one of the reference sources.
IESG
Rob Austein:, Bert Wijnen:
RFC Editor
Joyce Reynolds:
The RFC Editor charter draft was discussed and the current state of this document was queried, together with the longer term options. The RFC Editor has sent a brief charter to Leslie and Harald, and this will be forwarded to the IAB.
IRTF
Vern Paxson:
The IAB discussed the current state of the Anti-Spam RG.
ISOC
Lynn St Amour:
ITU-T
Scott Bradner:
W3C
Leslie Daigle:
ICANN - TLG
Geoff Huston:, Mike St Johns
ARIN has forwarded to the IAB some details relating to a request for address (appended).
In considering this matter, the IAB noted that there has been an IPR interest filing with the Teredo technology. The current Internet Draft describing the technology relating to the allocation request is draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt (6th June 2003).
The IAB determined to advise ARIN that this allocation should not proceed as an RIR allocation, on the basis that the draft proposes that IANA allocate a Teredo IPv6 service prefix and a Teredo IPv4 multicast address. An IANA allocation would be made as part of the normal process of RFC publication within the Internet Standards process, if this draft was to be published in its current format following the normal process of IETF review. To request an RIR allocation in advance of the IETF review of this proposal was premature in terms of IETF process and the associated IETF instructions to IANA regarding such allocations.
This note describes the current approach of the IAB to liaisons to national, multi-national, or regional organizations.
The IETF is an international body, and as such, does not generally provide or accept liaisons with non-international organizations or for non-international purposes. From time to time, it may be advantageous for the IETF to provide or accept a liaison a non-international organization (hereafter "the organization") for the purposes of information exchange.
The IAB is responsible for liaisons between the IETF and other organizations. The IAB may, at its discretion, select one or more active participants of the IETF to interact with the organization on the IETF's behalf as liaison. In keeping with the localized nature of this particular type of liaison, and to minimize barriers such as travel and language, the IAB shall generally try to select a liaison who is a citizen or permanent resident of the country or countries that have chartered the organization. However, other considerations (e.g. need for specific technical expertise, lack of a local candidate) may result in appointment of a liaison from outside that region. The IAB shall prefer to select a liaison who currently does not hold a position as either an IAB or IESG member. At its discretion, the IAB may remove or replace such liaison at any time.
The exact role of the liaison is subject to the needs of the organization and the IETF. In general, the liaison should be an honest broker of information between the IETF/IAB/IESG and the organization, and should not represent personal opinion as official position of the IETF. Where appropriate, and where charged by the IAB, the liaison may provide the organization with technical information and opinion appropriate to their area of expertise, but must clearly indicate to the organization the origin of such information or opinion. The liaison should provide timely reports to the IAB on the substance of the interaction with the organization and should from time to time comment on whether there continue to be benefits to the IETF from such a relationship.
The IAB considered a proposal to undertake a BOF or an Open IAB Meeting on addressing-related architectural issues as a means of the IAB gathering input from the IETF community on these issues. It was determined to request the Secretariat for an Open Meeting slot, and to use a meeting framework of an introduction, a sequence of short prepared issue statements on this topic. It was noted that there was no intention of resuming WG-based discussions in this open meeting, and the meeting would be coordinated with the IESG and the relevant WG chairs to ensure that the objectives of the meeting as an information gathering exercise were achieved.
The IAB noted that there are no currently active RGS where an IAB review would be timely at present, and it was proposed to consider the more general role and positioning of the IRTF in the IAB meetings that week.
8.1 IAB Confirmation of Nominated IESG Candidate
The IAB considered the process it would use concerning confirmation of the nominated candidate to fill the casual vacancy of an Area Director for the Internet Area.
The IAB agreed to adopt the following process for confirmation:
Positive vote for confirmation - a majority of the sitting members who aren't disqualified or haven't recused themselves must vote to confirm the candidate, otherwise the candidate is rejected.
The IETF chair is disqualified from voting or participating in the discussion on the IESG slate or IESG candidates. The IAB may ask the IETF chair questions about the needs of the IESG prior to the IAB being advised of a nominated candidate.
The chair of the IAB can choose when to call the question with the following conditions:
Vote may be by voice vote during a teleconference, by email ballot to the iab members' mail list, or by secret ballot to the Executive Director and Chair as agreed to by consensus. If there is no consensus, vote will be by secret ballot.
The IAB also stated the view that in the event that a sitting IAB member was nominated to replace the casual vacancy in the IESG, the IETF Executive Director would be informed of the casual vacancy only upon confirmation of the initial nomination, and the Nominations Committee would then need to undertake a subsequent nominations process for the IAB casual vacancy.
8.2 Intellectual Property Rights issues for the IRTF
The IRTF chair voiced the concern that within the context of a Research Group activity an individual may advocate a research approach in which they have undisclosed IPR and the RG puts effort into an activity that is of benefit to the original advocate.
It was noted that the IRTF does not produce Standards, and the consequent issues of industry forcing and implied imposition of cost are not as directly relevant to IRTF outputs. There was some noted implications in the decisions of a RG to operate in an Open of Closed manner with respect to RG membership. The ethical dimension of research collaboration and due disclosure was also noted in discussion.
The IRTF chair was referred to IETF legal counsel for further consideration of these issues.
8.3 Consideration of joint IAB / IESG retreat
The IAB noted that this could be a useful activity, but was looking for a location that was relatively close to the majority of IAB /IESG members and where there had been substantive preparation in the meeting materials to allow the retreat to be productive. At this stage it remained an option to hold this in October in a North American location., contingent on the agenda planning being undertaken.
ARIN recently received a request for address space based on an ID. Our response is below. By this message ARIN is consulting with the other RIRs and with the IETF as described in Option 2 of our response.
Ray
--------
Text of Message
We have looked into your inquiry regarding the special case allocation of a /32 to be reserved for Teredo clients. Current ARIN policy precludes making allocations based on Internet-Drafts. In the case that this Internet Draft results in an RFC with an IANA consideration, the /32 prefix for Teredo clients could be made through coordination between the IANA and ARIN. Otherwise, a policy would need to exist in the ARIN region that allows the allocation of IPv6 address space for the purposes described in your inquiry.
We must consider your argument, however, that your organization will be releasing a service to customers that will rely on an implementation similar to what is described in the Internet Draft you have cited. We do have a concern, however, that if we make an allocation to Microsoft with the understanding that this /32 will be used for one of their service offerings to customers, that organizations other than Microsoft will also utilize this /32 for Teredo client implementations. Making this allocation could then be viewed as the Regional Internet Registries subverting the processes of the IETF.
We see ARIN's options in regards to your inquiry as follows:
Take no action until the processes of the IETF produce an RFC with IANA considerations.
Discuss the challenges of this situation with the IETF and the other RIRs to determine if there are alternatives we have not discovered.
Look into possible policy changes in the ARIN region that would allow IPv6 allocations of this type.
We are going to move forward with option #2 at this time. Please let us know if you would like to pursue option #3 in addition to option #2.
These minutes were prepared by Geoff Huston; comments should be sent to iab-execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins/
The IAB Web page is at http://www.iab.org
|
Index of IAB Meeting Minutes |
|