Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2001-08-07

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2001»IAB Minutes 2001-08-07

IAB Meeting — August 7, 2001, 07h30-09h00GMT and 18h00-22h00 GMT

ATTENDING

      John Klensin — IAB Chair
      Harald Alvestrand — IETF/IESG Chair [PM only]
      Rob Austein
      Fred Baker
      Steve Bellovin — Liaison to the IESG
      Brian Carpenter [By phone, PM only]
      Jon Crowcroft
      Leslie Daigle
      Steve Deering
      Sally Floyd
      Erik Huizer — IRTF Chair, liaison from the IRTF
      Geoff Huston
      Erik Nordmark — Liaison from the IESG [PM only]
      Henning Schulzrinne
      Lynn St.Amour — Liaison from ISOC

    REGRETS:

      Ran Atkinson
      Joyce K. Reynolds — Liaison from the RFC Editor

NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING

AGENDA

    1. Acceptance of minutes of past meetings
    2. Review of Action Items (below)
    3. Review of current IAB documents (below)
    4. Liaison updates
    5. PSO-PC status
    6. POISSON
    7. O&M Architecture?
    8. Are we ready to plenary?
    9. OPES, CDI, and friends
    10. SteveD’s hourglass figure

NOTES

    1. Acceptance of minutes of past meetings

    2. Review of Action Items

      See below.

    3. Review of current IAB documents

      See below.

    4. Liaison updates

      IESG:
      The IESG has selected a new liaison — Erik Nordmark has taken over from Randy Bush as liaison to the IAB from the IESG, as of the IESG’s meeting on Saturday, August 4, 2001.

      Discussion of a proposal to have the IAB manage the incubation period of some of the broader-reaching, less-focused work proposals. For example, when there is work that the IESG feels is not ready for a working group, but that is not IRTF material, we might manage an “architectural design team” to tease things out. Can focus on making sure they get architectural things sorted before making a WG. Whether these groups actually meet (e.g., at the IETF) or work strictly by e-mail, for example, would be based on a case-by-case basis. This would be an extended problem definition and charter writing activity, but it’s very clear that the IESG retains, as always, the “go/no go” on accepting a proposed working group or making charter changes. Members of the IAB generally supported the idea, although there were concerns about time committments; details to be worked out.

      IRTF:
      Erik Huizer reported that he has heard from Eliot Lear with respect to some new ideas on how to move forward with the NSRG (Namespace Research Group). Might be important to link some of the NSRG work into the “routing” area, since some of the questions seem to be edging into naming ones.

      ErikH will help clear out any identified deadwood research groups in the IRTF before handing the keys over to Vern Paxson.

      ISOC:
      These are challenging economic times all around. ISOC is working on developing more member benefits (e.g., bi-weekly technical updates). ISOC will also be taking over support of Robert Ferrell’s RFC report — watch the ISOC website for details.

      W3C:
      W3C has proposed a “regular” teleconference at the end of August.

      ITU:
      A subset of the IAB and IESG met with members of ITU-T (its head, Houlin Zhao, and study group chairs) over the weekend (prior to the IETF meeting). This left a generally positive sense of shared understanding & communication with ITU-T on the work we are doing; some specifics of communication mechanics (more effective use of mailing lists, etc) to be worked out.

      PSO:
      See next agenda item.

      Potential liaison:
      ISO/IEC JTC1 Subcommittee 22 requests Category A liaison with us. (See appendix, below). They have two working items of particular interest to us: POSIX, JTC-1 WG on internationalization. The liaison would give us more organized communication with ISO. John is willing to take it on; he already is on advisory council. The IAB agrees to take it on.

    5. PSO-PC status

      The PSO has named Vint Cerf to serve another term as ICANN Board Member.

      The IAB discussed the state of the IETF’s interaction with ICANN and the PSO, two years into it. We want to see that ICANN gets the technical input that it requires; is the current structure of the PSO and PSO-PC the right mechanism? No firm conclusion was reached.

    6. POISSON

      John voiced the concern that the current POISSON working group is not acting as an effective forum — to address IETF process concerns, or even to get consensus on specific work items. We need a public forum for IETF discussion of process issues; is POISSON it?

      It’s up to the Area Director of the General Area (i.e., the IETF Chair, Harald Alvestrand); proposed plan is to provide an alternate mailing list for general discussion; POISSON (or some successor created as needed) will be used to handle specifically-chartered work items.

    7. O&M Architecture?

      Bert Wijnen, Operations & Management AD, has asked the IAB to consider how we might approach the problem of creating an O&M architecture.

      SteveB will go off with Bert & Randy Bush to tease out what the specific problem statement might be.

    8. Are we ready to plenary?

      Apart from the regular reports, and an open microphone session, Steve Deering will present his “hourglass” presentation (narrow waisted IP stack). General support & agreement for the notion; it will be a _personal_ presentation, not a general IAB position.

      The hourglass/architecture itself will be discussed in agenda item 10.

    9. OPES, CDI, and friends

      There have been a few rounds of IAB/IESG pushback on some of the application-layer, content-management working group proposals. We need to find a way to identify more clearly _what_ the issues are, solve them, or close the book. Following on the proposal of having some slightly more formal “incubating” period with input from the IAB, OPES and CDI are potential candidates for experimenting with the process (although things must happen quickly — these 2 groups have been waiting a while). WG. IESG is keen to hand off OPES and CDI. Bert/IESG is keen to have the IAB deal with the task of coming up with an O&M architecture.

    10. SteveD’s hourglass figure

      Steve Deering puts forward the “hourglass model” of the protocol stack — narrow in the middle; keeping IP simply allows for any number of potential underlying technologies and applications built on top. With that model in mind, Steve asks the question: does the IETF have a scaling problem, and if so, should we stay trimmed to work only on Layer 3 and the part of Layer 4 that enables transport management? There was general pushback from the rest of the IAB. Need to build some kind of generic applications infrastructure that works well in the environment of the Internet (without producing unnecessary congestion, or performing layer violations).

      No specific conclusions reached, beyond the sense that this is the kind of question that recurs — Harald suggests it needs to be taken out and aired periodically.

OLD ACTION ITEMS

  • Harald Alvestrand:
    Arrange “International Internet” workshop/series of meetings.

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Harald and John are holding a meeting this week to talk about the real technology issues and how to move forward. Hope to have a report by Friday. Nothing done to schedule a next meeting.

  • Rob Austein and Brian Carpenter:
    Review and potentially update RFC 1958.

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing;
        to be followed up by Brian Carpenter after he revises the middleboxes draft. We discussed whether this item (ongoing for a couple of years) should be closed and issues followed up in some other action. Rob will talk to Brian about it.
  • Steve Deering:
    Put together a strawman of his view about what the scope of the Internet architecture is/should be in considering IETF work.

      [pre-May01]
      Done
        Discussion was followed up in agenda item 10.
  • Geoff Huston, Steve Deering, and Henning Schulzrinne:
    Put together a problem statement/charter for the IP provisioning problem, with timeframe for conclusion. Will later determine whether it’s IRTF or IETF material.

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing;
        no progress. Jon suggests it’s not really specifically a routing problem, so it shouldn’t migrate into the “where will we fix routing” question. The three implicated will get together now now and get back to us if they will move forward.
  • John Klensin:
    Send Brian’s drafted note to IRTF Routing RG spelling out research objectives for inter-domain routing improvements.

      [pre-May01]
      Done

  • Geoff Huston:
    Bring the inter-domain routing issue to the IRTF Routing Group, e.g., to get the terminology sorted out.

      [pre-May01]
      Done
        See discussion on next action item.
  • Geoff Huston, Fred Baker:
    Subcommittee to report back to IAB next IETF (London) about progress of the inter-domain routing problem: understanding & proposals within the IETF.

      [pre-May01]
      Done
        Response from the Routing RG suggests that they think they have the work in hand. See draft-davies-fdr-reqs-01.txt (Future Domain Routing Requirements); Frank Kastenholtz is also doing some work in the area. At least some of the IAB would like to hear more specific details from the RRG in terms of what work is being addressed there, to make sure all bases (near and long term) are adequately covered.
  • Henning Schulzrinne, Jon Crowcroft:
    See about organizing an ACM/IEEE focussed workshop on the subject of interdomain routing issues

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Not discussed.
  • Leslie Daigle, John Klensin:
    Revise the proposal for a workshop on “Survey of identifiers at all layers”

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Not discussed.
  • John Klensin:
    Have a chat with Tim Berners-Lee re. ongoing relationship/liaising strategies between IETF/W3C.

      [May01]
      Ongoing

  • John Klensin:
    Discuss proposed IPR repository plan with IETF lawyers.

      [May01]
      Done
        Next step is to talk to the IESG about it.
  • Steve Bellovin:
    Informal chat with local patent lawyers and report back re. what they would find useful in an IPR repository.

      [May01]
      Done
        Lawyers said the most important things were accurate dates and cited works.
  • John Klensin, Geoff Huston:
    Float proposal for revised protocol assignment framework.

      [Jun01]
      Ongoing

  • Ran Atkinson:
    (Definitive) history of the IETF; sit down with Mike St. Johns and nail down the names and players of the early years, in a format for public posting.

      [Jul01]
      In progress.
        Ran’s looking for IETF long-timers to contribute.
  • Steve Deering, IAB:
    Circulate talk London IAB plenary presentation and, with Geoff Huston, prepare “critical near-term architectural issues” presentation.

      [Jul01]
      Done

NEW ACTION ITEMS

  • Steve Bellovin:
    Talk to Bert Wijnen & Randy Bush re. “O&M Architecture” question, and see about scoping out a problem statement.

      [Aug01]

  • John Klensin:
    Talk to the IESG about IPR repository plan.

      [Aug01]

  • John Klensin:
    Follow-up with Harald Alvestrand, Patrik Faltstrom (APPS area director) re. potential for IAB work with OPES & CDI.

IAB DRAFTS IN PROGRESS

  • Ran Atkinson, Steve Bellovin:
    Security considerations, including common security attacks.

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Most of the work is done, but terminology changes need to be folded in. SteveB chatted with Eric Rescorla; Eric is willing to change the terminology in his document to align with the existing security terminology doc (Schnier). SteveB will work with him to include terminology updates & address Steve Kent comments.
  • Harald Alvestrand:
    Directory definitions.

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Just a few edits left to do before putting out a new (final?) version.
  • Steve Bellovin:
    Applicability statement for security building blocks.

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Jeff Schiller has taken this on, but no immediate progress.
  • Geoff Huston:
    Architectural Requirements for Inter-Domain Routing in the Internet

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        In RFC Editor queue since June 26, 2001. The RFC Editor sent it to the IESG for comment. The 2 week limit has expired. We should move on.
  • Brian Carpenter:
    Middle boxes: taxonomy and issues

      [pre-May01]
        The -02 version is new. It’s ready to go. Should it be IAB or personal? Some thought that the IAB shouldn’t do a just a taxonomy doc, and we’re not ready to take an architectural stand. It would, though be good input to the OPES & CDI discussions. No final conclusion.
  • Henning Schulzrinne:
    Telephony Services PSTN interworking draft as an IAB document.

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Expected out as soon as the I-D gates open again. Additional plan is to sit down with some IESG members and discuss its content before officially submitting it for RFC review.
  • Geoff Huston:
    .arpa policy document

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        draft-iab-arpa-03.txt has been approved by the IESG.
  • Leslie Daigle:
    IETF PSO-PC Process

      [May01]
      Ongoing
        . Was awaiting input for the next step. We reviewed the comments solicited and received. In the light of the ongoing discussions of relationships with and within the PSO/PSO-PC, the consensus was to stick with the original plan and proceed with the proposal for making PSO-PC appointments and ICANN Board nominee proposals IAB tasks.

APPENDIX — ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 Communication

    (Transcribed)

    -- begin transcription --
    

    SC22/WG20 N836

    Liaison between ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 and IETF
    Statement of mutual benefits and responsibilities

    Dated: 2001-05-09

    This statement is in support of a type A liaison between ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 and IETF.

    Internet networking and programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces efforts do not occur in isolation.

    Internetnetworking standardization has a need for using programming languages in the design of protocols, and also for system software interfaces to describe things like internationalization for use in Internat [sic] protocols. Programming languages etc need to integrate Internet faclities [sic] in the language and library support.

    Benefits:

    The IETF produces specifications for the internet protocols and related issues. As the Internet is nowadays a very important part of the overall world economics, it is important that programming languages and system software interfaces can support internet protocols in their specifications and SC22 can thus benefit from a liaison.

    Conversely, SC22 develops international standards and specifications regarding programming languages and system software interfaces, such as related to internationalization. Since the IETF has a clear interest in such standards, it would benefit by having a liaison line from SC22 reporting on the progress in such standards development.

    Responsibilities:

    The two organizations will exchange information and contributions to common interest work on a regular basis. Whenever possible, they will send representatives to each others meetings.

    Approved: SC22

    -- end transcription --
    

FUTURE MEETINGS

    Regular teleconference second Tuesday of the month 1500-1700 US East Coast time.


These minutes were prepared by Leslie Daigle; comments should be sent to iab-execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes are available at http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins.

Also, visit the IAB Web page at http://www.iab.org.