November 22, 2006
- Rollcall, Agenda Bash, Minutes
- Where next from the Unwanted Traffic Workshop?
- Follow-up on Routing and Addressing Workshop
- Follow-up on experimental congestion control from IETF Week?
- Liaison Discussion/appointments
- Input to the Nomcom on IAB expectations about community feedback
- IAB Use of Draft Tracker or Not
- IAB Discuss of ENUM Documents Toward ITU
- Fred’s multihoming scalability doc
- Updating IAOC Questionnaire
- Regular Reports
- JFC Morfin Appeal
Leslie Daigle — IAB Chair
Aaron Falk — IRTF Chair
Sandy Ginoza — Liaison from the RFC Editor
Phil Roberts — IAB Executive Director
Dan Romascanu — Liaison from the IESG
Lynn St. Amour — Liaison from ISOC
Brian Carpenter — IETF Chair
The IAB had a long discussion about possible follow-on activities to the workshop on unwanted traffic. The problem is so large and so much of solving it seems intractable that it is difficult to see obvious things to do. Loa and Lixia agreed to draft some text for talking points about possible actions the IAB might take to provide leadership in this area.
The IAB discussed how to proceed with concrete steps as a follow-on to the Routing and Addressing workshops. In addition to the production of the workshop report from Dave Meyer, Lixia, and Kevin, the IAB and IESG should have a call hopefully in December to discuss together how we might proceed. Leslie agreed to try to arrange such a call. The community that was involved in the routing and addressing workshop was limited and focussed. Given that it is important to include other communities that might be impacted, Lixia, Meyer, and Kevin also agreed to start putting together a list of stakeholders from a wider community than was represented at the workshop.
To achieve high performance in various different environments (e.g., high-speed or wireless networks), recent research has yielded many alternate congestion control schemes. However deploying these new congestion control schemes in the global Internet has possible ramifications to both the network and to traffic using the currently standardized congestion control. After a request from Lars Eggert, several IAB members attended a meeting during IETF-67. Participants in that meeting reached a consensus that these new experimental protocols should be published with appropriate caveats and that the ICCRG can take on the task of evaluating these protocols before they get deployed in the global Internet. This topic will be discussed at the upcoming ICCRG meeting on February 6, 2007 in Marina Del Rey.
The IAB agreed that it doesn’t have any further action on this topic.
Dave Oran is working with Mark Townsley on a specific recommendation incorporating input received so far about a liaison with CableLabs.
Olaf agreed to finish up the text for the nomcom on the IAB’s expectations about how the nomcom gathers community feedback and send it to them this Friday.
Dan, Leslie, and Phil met at IETF-67. Phil will produce a proposal on how to proceed before December 1. Leslie already produced a set of proposed states within the draft tracker. There are proto documents that are blocked on our input so reaching a conclusion rapidly is important.
Leslie forwarded the last call for the infrastructure ENUM requirements to the IAB because it has implications for the E164.ARPA for establishment of a separate anchor for the infrastructure ENUM namespace. There have since been discussions with the ENUM working group. The IETF will assume responsiblity for work on the protocol but establishment of the infrastructure for the infrastructure-ENUM namespace will need to take place outside the IETF, probably by the ITU.
This document was to be discussed in the v6 ops working group but didn’t get a lot of time. Dave Meyer agreed to write up some text about this proposal.
Brian sent last year’s questionnaire to the IAB on 11/2. The IAB is waiting on Phil to review this and propose some updates. Phil will send out a proposed revision by 12/1.
IESG Liaison Report
- The IESG discussed in the last telechat the ‘Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication’ internet draft –
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt. There are two open DISCUSSes to be solved, it goes into AD follow-up. The document is already recommended and used to a large extend in the different areas practice.
- A re-chartering proposal for ieprep was submitted to the IESG, and caused quite an amount of discussions within the IESG and on the ieprep and IETF lists. Some of the concerns are related to the lack of focus and clear scope boundaries in previous ieprep activities, consistency with the Internet properties and relationship and division of work with other SDOs, mainly the ITU-T. The item will be brought back for further discussion in a coming meeting.
- On 11/7 the IESG published responses to JFC Morfin’s appeals sent on 2006-08-17 (part 2) and on 2006-10-24. Appeals and responses are available at
Annex: Status of draft-iab documents.
Currently the following documents are registered in the tracker and watched by the IESG liaison AD:
- draft-iab-dos-05.txt – In AUTH48 – BCP? Informational?
During the meeting Dan added: the IESG report includes starting with this month a list of draft-iab- … In the tracker that I am looking at as document shepherd and liaison AD. This is an intermediary solution until the IAB access to the tracker will be put in place.
RFC Editor Report
- The RFC Editor made a mistake awhile ago by changing the RFC boilerplate acknowledgement to acknowledge IASA instead of ISOC. We have altered the text to correct this error so that it once again acknowledges ISOC.
This change took place on November 1, 2006.
Current (reversion to oringinal):
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
However, in January 2007, we will begin publishing RFCs with the acknowledgement that is agreed upon in the RFC Editor Contract.
- We (John Wroclawski, Bob Braden, Alice Hagens, Sandy Ginoza) met with Ray and Leslie to discuss the RFC Editor contract.
- We intend to prepend the following text to subseries documents that contain more than 1 RFC (text suggested by Brian Carpenter): [Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]
We do not believe this change requires community approval. If you disagree, please let us know. Otherwise, we will implement this in the next week.
- IETF – RFC Editor Tutorial Session and Office Hours
- Tutorial Session
The RFC Editor gave a tutorial on “Writing an RFC”. There were about 35 – 40 individuals in attendance.
Slides are available at:
Our Q&A; session notes are available upon request.
- Office Hours
The RFC Editor held office hours on Monday – Wednesday. We received about 35 visitors.
Stats: IETF 67 Office Hours Status Update Requests: 12 Process Questions: 5 XML – XML General: 1 – XML2RFC: 3 ISR: 3 Errata: 3 Other: 8
- Tutorial Session
- We are working to update and reorganize the RFC Editor webpages. Comments and questions fielded during the tutorial and office hours provided us with additional input for making our site more user-friendly.
- There is ongoing discussion of cooperation between ICCRG and IETF Transport Area on reviewing experimental congestion control protocols. Lars will speak to the ICCRG meeting in Feb.
- There may yet be life in the IMRG. Mark Allman, IMRG chair, is making progress towards a workshop on application identification.
- The first IRTF document, a draft from the MOBOPTS group, has made its way through IESG review prompting lots of feedback and revisions to the process.
- End-Middle-End RG has been chartered (noted in the plenary but not in a status report). The first RG result will probably be a charter revision based on feedback from the mailing list, which has been quite energetic.
- Allison Mankin, in her role as NSF program manager, has invited IRTF participants to participate in the FIND program on ‘reinventing the Internet’. While NSF funds US researchers, there appear to be opportunities for non-US folks.
- Had a brief conversation with the SAVA folks at the IETF, along with the INT ADs, on their address verification work. They’ve been asked to publish some drafts on their implementation, results, and research agenda as the ground work to request a (possibly one-time) BoF. It remains unclear what the potential work and issues are and whether this represents a candidate IETF or IRTF activity.
Lynn St. Amour
- ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting:
The ISOC Board meeting was held immediately following IETF 67. The most notable points were the Board approval of the 2007 ISOC Budget and the 2007 – 2009 high level budgetary plan. See
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/agenda-nov-06.shtml for the agenda and the Board presentations. As a part of this review, the IASA budget was approved and ISOC will be contributing $1.3M USD from ISOC’s traditional revenue stream and an additional $0.3M USD from specific IETF related fundraising activities (mainly related to a new hosting model for IETF meetings). For a non-profit organization like ISOC, to operate to sound accounting principles we should have a min. of 6 months of operating expenses in unencumbered cash reserves as part of our net asset balance. In addition, we committed to the IETF in RFC 4071 to also have twice the recent average for IETF meeting contract guarantees by 2008. With the current projections we will achieve this goal (6 months plus two meeting guarantees) by the end of 2006, significantly ahead of schedule.
- ISOC Major Strategic Initiatives ISOC is looking for suggestions for major strategic initiatives that we might oversee/develop (these are expected to address some of the more intractable problems facing the Internet and hence would be expected to be from 5 – 15 years in duration). We would obviously not be duplicating the work of other organizations such as the IETF, IAB, etc. This was discussed at the last Board meeting and a separate request will be forthcoming.
No other business
The IAB entered executive session to discuss the JFC Morfin appeal.