Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2001-12-11

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2001»IAB Minutes 2001-12-11

IAB Business Meeting — December 11, 2001

Salt Lake City IETF
0700-0900 US Mountain
1830-2200 US Mountain

NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING:

    Teleconference Tuesday January 8 (2002) 1500-1700 US ET.

ATTENDING

      John Klensin — IAB Chair
      Harald Alvestrand (PM) — IETF Chair
      Ran Atkinson
      Rob Austein
      Fred Baker
      Steve Bellovin — IAB liaison to the IESG
      Brian Carpenter
      Leslie Daigle
      Steve Deering
      Sally Floyd
      Erik Huizer — IRTF Chair, Liaison from the IRTF
      Geoff Huston (PM, phone)
      Erik Nordmark (PM) — IESG liaison to the IAB
      Vern Paxson — incoming IRTF Chair, Liaison from the IRTF
      Lynn St.Amour — Liaison from ISOC
      Henning Schulzrinne

    REGRETS:

      Jon Crowcroft
      Joyce K. Reynolds — Liaison from RFC Editor

AGENDA

    1. Acceptance of minutes of past meetings
      • November 20, 2001 (as circulated December 7, 2001)
    2. Review of Action Items (below)
    3. Review of current IAB documents (below)
    4. Liaison updates
    5. Any final prep for Thursday plenary
    6. Internationalization, and future of workshops
    7. Glorp vs. shipworm — if there are any non-technical elements to this discussion

NOTES

    1. Acceptance of minutes of past meetings

      • November 20, 2001 (as circulated December 7, 2001)

      Accepted

    2. Review of Action Items (see below)

    3. Review of current IAB documents (see below)

    4. Liaison updates

      IESG

        Nothing much to report: there has been discussion on what practical steps to take with the IAB “OPES Considerations” draft and managing the process with the OPES group if it’s chartered.

      W3C

        Nothing report.

      PSO

        Nothing to report.

      ISOC

        Had a very intense board meeting this past weekend. They have modified by-laws for ISOC governance. Have also lowered budget for next year, because of the overall industry slump and expectation of reduced revenue. Individual membership is a traditional money-loser; part of the restructuring will redirect individual membership payments to chapters (i.e., no more paid individual membership within ISOC directly). There will be 3 board seats that will be appointed by the IETF (of a board of 15). Boot-strapping: we will appoint 2 by June. ISOC will write job description and requirements. Individual membership elections have been cancelled for the year.

      IRTF

        This week, the hand-off between outgoing and incoming IRTF Chairs is taking place.

        New co-chair for Routing Research Group (RRG) by end of week.

        Biggest issue within the IRTF right now is DMCA (“this silly law that the US has apparently created” — Erik Huizer). ISOC might put out (another) press release pointing out the real impact of this law on technology development. Threat is overhanging digital rights management research work (here (IDRM research group) and elsewhere); it looks like this isn’t going to get solved until someone gets sued.

        General discussion noted that it is conceivable that everything we do in the security area is as vulnerable to DMCA-based suit as anything we do in digital rights management. Steve Bellovin pointed out that encryption research has a loophole. John Klensin countered that applications of cryptography are NOT covered (paranoid interpretation from EFF lawyers).

    5. Any final prep for Thursday plenary

      DMCA: outcome of IDRM RG session is that DMCA will be on our Thursday plenary agenda. Our basic belief is that the IDRM RG is not working on stuff the DMCA is targetting (e.g., hacking cryptography) — it is focused on more general issues of moving bits around. We should focus discussion on whether there is a more general proposal for scoping what is or is not within scope of IETF work. Must make it clear that IDRM is not an IETF WG, it is an IRTF research group, and works under the IRTF’s charter. OPES: Sally Floyd will present the OPES considerations document not so much from the standpoint of “what we did with OPES”, but more from the view of where we’re going with architecture. This can express some specific things we got out of the OPES meeting, and it can also act to focus discussion for the open mic on architecture issues.

    6. Internationalization, and future workshops

      The “INTLOC” (Internationalization/Localization) BoF that was held on Monday was the follow-on from the series of mini-workshops the IAB promoted on the subject. It was clear from that session that many viewpoints exist as to what the IETF can/should do under the label of “internationalization”.

      Other workshop possibilities include having on-going mini-sessions focused on trying to chart architecture-level views of things like the Applications Layer architecture.

    7. Glorp vs. shipworm

      “Glorp” is the name that the IAB used for the proposed extension of the MIDCOM WG charter to tackle the problem of letting applications find/express their address in communications across NA[P]T boundaries, before MIDCOM solutions are generally implemented and deployed.

      There was general discussion about this proposal, compared to the “shipworm” proposal for IPv6 addresses. Brian Carpenter suggested shipworm is less of a kludge because it doesn’t violate layers. Shipworm effectively assigns temporary addresses to sites that wouldn’t have IPv6 ones. One key concern was that deploying “glorp” patches will get in the way of deploying properly architected solutions (e.g., MIDCOM).

      General question: what is the transition plan? Shipworm fades away. Does glorp? A transition plan should be a requirement from the IAB.

      Sally Floyd points out that the value is in getting them to think about the problems, it’s not just questions from on high.

      Leslie will draft up an “IAB Considerations/Radiation symbol” text for the glorp and shipworm proposals, for the IESG to use as is appropriate.

OLD ACTION ITEMS

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

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Discussion has now reached full-circle: rough consensus that the IAB ought to hold a workshop on the subject; we need some kind of perpetual body but it should’t be a working group; area directors are busy; how about a mailing list? John points out this is coming full circle. Hard problem, at a loss what to do procedurally.

        Ran Atkinson suggests an “Internationalization Considerations” document — not the universe of good advice, but the extent to which the IETF is going to require its protocols to conform.

        Ran (and Henning Schulzrinne) will read the INTLOC documents and comment back to the IAB as to whether they cover that range of “considerations”.

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

      [pre-May01]
      Ongoing
        Draft text circulated to IAB for comment.
  • John Klensin, Geoff Huston:
    Float proposal for revised protocol assignment framework.

      [Jun01]
      Done (overtaken by events)
  • 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]
      Done
  • John Klensin:
    Talk to the IESG about IPR repository plan.

      [Aug01]
      Ongoing
        John & Harald Alvestrand need to have a discussion with IESG & Secretariat. John & Harald are declared the committee to deal with this.
  • Leslie Daigle:
    Draft up IAB Considerations for CDI.

      [Oct01]
      Ongoing
        Leslie spoke with Patrik Faltstrom, the responsible AD, and agreed to write 2 paragraphs saying “any eventual WG shall distinguish between short-term fix work and requirements for longer term, architectural issues in the Application Layer”. However, going through the 9 documents on the agenda for the CDI BoF in Salt Lake City, it appears the group is very far along in its efforts to create new architecture based on current operational mal-practices.

        Conclusion: there isn’t anything wrong with the current charter; but the documents need a thorough review from all quarters.

        Leslie will release the token to Patrik.

        Sally suggests we need a general document about IAB considerations — long term versus short term, and so on.

NEW ACTION ITEMS

  • Brian Carpenter, Lynn St.Amour
    Draft ISOC board member job description and requirements for IETF

      [Dec01]

  • Leslie Daigle
    Draft “IAB Considerations/Radiation symbol” text for glorp/shipworm work.

      [Dec01]

  • Ran Atkinson, Henning Schulzrinne
    Read INTLOC documents and comment on their applicability as “Internationalization Considerations”.

      [Dec01]

  • Sally Floyd
    First cut on “Architectural Considerations” document — a generalization of the discussions we’ve had about OPES, CDI, and glorp/shipworm.

      [Dec01]

IAB DRAFTS IN PROGRESS

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.