Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2008-02-20

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2008»IAB Minutes 2008-02-20

Minutes
IAB Teleconference

20 February 2008


1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia

1.1 Agenda

  1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
  2. Liaison Reports
  3. Infrastructure ENUM
  4. ICANN: Public Comments on the Effect of New gTLDs
  5. IETF Agenda
  6. RFC and RFP
  7. Executive Director

1.2 Attendance

PRESENT
Gonzalo Camarillo (incoming IAB)
Stuart Cheshire (incoming IAB)
Leslie Daigle
Elwyn Davies
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Kevin Fall
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Russ Housely (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Gregory Lebovitz (incoming IAB)
Barry Leiba
Kurtis Lindqvist
Danny McPherson
Dave Oran
Eric Rescorla
Dave Thaler
Mark Townsley (IESG liaison)
Lixia Zhang

APOLOGIES
Loa Andersson
Andy Malis (incoming IAB)
Lynn St. Amour (ISOC liaison, in chat room)

1.3 Approval of Minutes

No meeting minutes were reviewed.

2. 2. Liaison Reports

2.1. IESG Report

Mark Townsley reported that IESG activities centered on the normal run-up to the IETF meeting. The ROLL working group has been chartered; TICTOC is close to being chartered.

2.2. IRTF Report

There was no formal IRTF report. Aaron Falk summarized recent IRTF activity and plans for IETF 71. There will be 7 RGs meeting in Phila.

- Congestion Control, Routing, Network Management, Scalable Adaptive Multicast, Antispam, HIP, and DTN. There is a plan in the works to do a review of NMRG with the IAB at this IETF. The EMERG RG elected to close due to not enough energy. The in-progress document to redefine the IRTF stream is slightly wedged because of dependency on another document.

Leslie Daigle noted that the document on RFC labels is also still in progress. Its purpose is propose new labeling of RFCs to unify them and bring them up to date on the RFC streams we have defined. “Network Working Group” is anachronistic. She was optimistic there will be a document before Phila., but the work is likely to extend beyond her IAB tenure.

2.3. RFC Editor Report

As far as we know, the EDU team has not solidified their schedule for IETF 71, but “A Lifecycle of a Document” has been suggested. We expect to collaborate with the individual that volunteers to fill in for Margaret at this session.

2.4. ISOC Report

2.4.1 – ISOC’s IETF Fellowship Program

At IETF 71 we expect to host 5 students, 1 each from Bangladesh, Haiti, India, Kenya, and Pakistan. We are always looking for people willing to help mentor these students over the course of the IETF (matched by area of interest) and if you are interested, please see or write Mirjam Kuehne (kuehne@isoc.org). Thank you in advance for your support of this program, it is intended to enrich and help support the IETF as much as help these individuals as they work to extend the Internet in their countries.

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/071114pr_fellowship.shtml

2.4.2 – ISOC Board of Trustees meeting:

The next ISOC Board of Trustees meeting will take place at the close of the 71st IETF in the IETF hotel. ISOC Board meetings are open and attendance is most welcome. The Agenda and supporting materials will be published shortly at:

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/meetings.shtml.

The meeting begins on Saturday, the 15th March, at 8:00 am and adjourns at 6:00 pm, we reconvene on Sunday the 16th March from 8:00 am – 12:00.

2.4.3 – Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The third IGF, see: http://www.intgovforum.org/ is planned for early December in New Delhi, India (the date will likely be moved to 1 week earlier as it conflicts with a major Muslim holiday, and the city will likely change as well although it will remain in India). A planning meeting of the IGF Advisory Group will be held the week of February 25th in Geneva and ISOC will have two representatives there.

Our written contribution to the meeting can be found at: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/documents/igf-consultation-200802.pdf

and additional information/past contributions can be found here: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/IGF.shtml

2.4.4 – ICANN and the US Government’s Joint Project Agreement (JPA):

The United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, opened a public inquiry on “The Continued Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System: Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement”. ISOC’s statement can be seen here:

http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/ISOC_NTIA_response_080215.pdf

Note: in our statement we supported the IAB response to the same Inquiry.

3. Infrastructure ENUM

The IAB discussed Infrastructure ENUM to do some level setting for further discussion/progress and help formulate the IETF approach to this subject. Two drafts have formally come to the IAB. IESG RAI Area Directors have asked the IAB for feedback. Essentially infrastructure ENUM is a different application from end-to-end user ENUM. Infrastructure ENUM is designed to give a specific group of customers (e.g. service providers) the ability to find a point of interconnect, announce those entry points among themselves and have control over entries in the DNS for the entry points associated with those numbers. Requirements are orthogonal to those for user ENUM. The same application already exists in federated environments(e.g. voice peering) that use private DNS subtrees, so this tries to move to a zone apex for rooting these subtrees. Is this something where a specific set of users (e.g. voice providers who want to announce) are the only users of this application? Is this something they should just work out among themselves – or are we (the IAB/IESG) the appropriate set of people to figure out what the zone apex ought to be?

There was sentiment that the first step is “determining if the IAB ought to endorse the approach in the Internet-Drafts” before addressing the specifics of what the apex of the subtree ought to be. The IAB decided to hold a deeper discussion of this issue at the IAB technical meeting at IETF 71, and to invite the ENUM chairs to give a briefing and participate in the discussion.

4. ICANN: Public Comments on the Effect of New gTLDs.

See: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06feb08.htm

Also see Leslie’s mail dated February 8, 2008 subject “FYI — ICANN seeking input on new gTLDs & stability”

Danny McPherson volunteered to draft a response to ICANN on this issues.

5. IETF Agenda

The IRTF review on Thursday will be of the Network Management Research Group. Aaron Falk, as IRTF chair, will organize this session.

The IAB then discussed the plans for the technical plenary at IETF 71. Barry Leiba and Elwyn Davies coordinated the plans for the technical plenary. There will be two talks on IPTV. Marshall Eubanks will give background and talk about Internet TV vs IPTV vs 100K channels, etc. Then Keith Ross will talk about transport options – P2P, fat pipes, multicast, etc. and will talk in detail about bittorrent, etc.

The IAB/IESG lunch slot will be dedicated to a report on the recent APPS area workshop. On Wednesday there will be a joint IAB/IESG session to discuss the post mortem on T-MPLS joint work with the ITU and to discuss how to do better in the future – specifically how to deal better with the ITU.

6. RFC and RFP

The IAB entered executive session to discuss the ongoing IAOC work in the RFC Editor RFP/RFI. Liaisons Mark Townsley and Sandy Ginoza dropped off the call at this time.

Background:

The RFC Editor contract is expiring this year. The IOAC has an option to extend the current contract or issue an RFP to contract a new supplier.

During the RFP two years ago it became clear there might be benefit of splitting functions of some elements into separate functions. At that time it was not clear to IAOC how the RFC Editor function worked

- It occurred as a black box where text went in and RFC’s popped out. Currently we are in a somewhat better shape: a style guide is publicly available while a set of procedures is available to the IAOC.

It seems the RFC Editor can be decomposed into 3 functions:

- RFC Editor function,

- publication & archival storage,

- review and editorial board.

The IAOC believes that if you subcontract the separate functions you might save a lot of money – e.g. pull out publication to AMS.

The IAB discussed the issue of community involvement and the division of roles between IAB and IAOC. The IAB proposed an IAB/IAOC subcommittee to drive a proposal. Leslie Daigle volunteered to help form and participate in this.

7. Executive Director

The IAB discussed possible candidates for executive director to replace Joe Abley who is stepping down. An IETF message on the subject brought no candidates.


These minutes were prepared by Dave Oran and Dow Street. Any comments should be sent to execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/