Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2009-11-25

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2009»IAB Minutes 2009-11-25

Minutes
IAB Teleconference

2009-11-25

1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, administrivia, approval of minutes

1.1. Attendance

PRESENT
 Marcelo Bagnulo
 Ron Bonica
 Stuart Cheshire
 John Klensin (late)
 Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
 Vijay Gill
 Gregory Lebovitz
 Andy Malis
 Danny McPherson
 David Oran
 Jon Peterson
 Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
 Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
 Dave Thaler
APOLOGIES
 Gonzalo Camarillo
 Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
 Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
 Russ Housley (IETF Chair)

1.2. Agenda

No agenda changes were made.

1.3. Administrivia

There was a brief discussion of the IPR draft that Andy had just updated. The new version conforms to Bob Braden’s draft. Andy sent it to Bob, Sandy Ginoza, Jorge Contreras, and Marshall Eubanks for review, and will post it for community comment next week.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

No meeting minutes were reviewed during this call. Dow noted that he will be posting the IETF 76 plenary transcript for IAB review before uploading to the proceedings page.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1. ISOC Liaison

Lynn summarized her written report, focusing on the discussions at the Internet Governance Forum.

<begin ISOC Liaison written report>

ISOC’s Liaison Report to the IAB
November 25, 2009

Topics:
I. ISOC Briefing Panel on Bandwidth and Capacity Realities
II. Researchers luncheon
III. Securing the Routing Information Roundtable – Follow up
IV. ITU Council
V. Internet Governance Forum, Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, November 15-18 VI. ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting

I. ISOC Briefing Panel on Bandwidth and Capacity Realities

We had a successful panel during the week of IETF 76, bringing together multiple viewpoints to address the possibility of the Internet’s impending collapse due to the explosive growth in Internet bandwidth use — which is a recurring high-profile theme in the popular media. However, as panelists revealed, the reality of measuring and understanding Internet bandwidth growth and its implications at macro-scales is complex. While policy debates around issues such as “network neutrality” are underway, network operators are already managing their networks to address issues raised by bandwidth-intensive applications.

There will be a writeup of the panel session in the IETF Journal, as well as a whitepaper/report out of the session. In the meantime, presentations and more information are available from
http://www.isoc.org/bandwidth.

II. Researchers luncheon

ISOC hosted a luncheon of researchers during the week in Hiroshima, providing an opportunity for researchers (from Japan, as well as elsewhere) to share updates on the status of their “future Internet” work. A report, and copies of the presentations, will be made available. We are in discussions with Aaron Falk about how the future of these meetings will align with IRTF activities.

III. Securing the Routing Information Roundtable – Follow up

The report from the September roundtable on securing routing information is now available (and was presented to the IETF SIDR WG, at IETF 76): http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs/
routingroundtable_200909.pdf

IV. ITU Council

The ITU Council authorized creation of a temporary working group under both the Director of TSB and the Director of BDT, to look at “further activities toward the implementation of WTSA Resolution 64 liaising as appropriate with ITU-D and ITU-T study groups.” The group is asked in particular:

a). To draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large IPv6 block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing countries, but with the following condition “These reserved blocks would then be managed by IANA/RIRs, as there is a concern from the RIRs that if ITU would allocate these reserved blocks to countries, the incumbent telecom operator or ISPs might be favored by government agencies whereas in reality it is new start-ups who need IPv6 addresses.” [The resulting resolution would go to the next Council meeting in April 2010.]

b). To further study possible methodologies and related implementation mechanisms to ensure Ôequitable accessÕ to IPv6 resource by countries.

c). To further study the possibility for ITU to become another Internet Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to manage a reserved IPv6 block. [this seems to contradict (a) above.]

d). To further study the feasibility and advisability of implementing the Country Internet Registry (CIR) model for those countries who would request national allocations.

e). To assist in the implementation of the project called for by Resolution 64 [to promote awareness of IPv6 by developing countries], taking into account the needs at regional and national level in terms of capacity building and allocation policies.

f). To report to the next meeting of Council.

The working group will be chaired by Mohammed Al Khamis, Manager ICT Planning, Telecom Regulatory Authority of United Arab Emirates, and will meet in Geneva, March 15-16, 2010. Fortunately ITU-T and ITU-D Sector Members are permitted to take part. Discussions are ongoing among ISOC, the NRO and ICANN with the goal of collaborating to reach out to ITU Member States in advance of the meeting, and to participate in the meeting itself.

This issue, among others impacting on Internet standards, governance and control, will almost certainly play out through the two major ITU Conferences in 2010: the World Telecommunication Development Conference in Hyderabad, India, May 24-June 4, and the Plenipotentiary Conference in Veracruz, Mexico, October 4-22.

V. Internet Governance Forum, Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, November 15-18

Despite being back-to-back with the Hiroshima IETF meeting, I* organizations were prominent at the fourth IGF. The tone was set in the opening session where almost all speakers spoke in favour of the open, bottom up model of Internet development – a real change in tone from earlier years. That set the tone for much of the meeting.

One main session discussion of “critical Internet resources” covering IPv6, IDNs and multilingualism, as well as the IANA contract and the new ICANN Affirmation of Commitments, was fairly calm with a few exceptions (one centering around a discussion of a study of CIR’s done by the National Advanced IPv6 Centre of Excellence (NAV6) in Malaysia, for the ITU that posited that the current system of IP address allocation is anti-competitive, but the discussion was inconclusive.

Another main session discussion of “Internet Governance in Light of the WSIS Principles” offered opportunities for many speakers to talk about how the WSIS Principles came out of the experience of the I* organizations, not the other way around. Little opposition was voiced. Kurt Lindqvist spoke about the IETF during that session. Finally, the true business of the 4th meeting was an open consultation on the future of the IGF, conducted by the United Nations Under Secretary General Sha Zukang. Forty-seven speakers from all stakeholder groups spoke in this rather formal session, with a large majority favouring a continuation of the IGF. The comments from this session as well as written comments have now been taken away, and Under Secretary General Sha will prepare a report on the consultations for consideration by governments (through various UN bodies) during 2010. A decision on the future of the Forum is expected before the fifth and (so far) final IGF in Vilnius, Lithuania, September 14-17, 2010.

VI. ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting

The ISOC Board is holding its next Board meeting on December 4th (afternoon only) and 5th (all day) 2009 in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The Board approves a three-year Business plan and the upcoming year’s budget at this meeting. ISOC Board meetings are open and participation is welcome. The agenda is posted at http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/agenda-dec-09.shtml.

<end ISOC Liaison written report>

2.2. IESG Liaison

Ron summarized his written report, noting that Joel Halpern and Terry Manderson would be the new LISP WG chairs. No decision has yet been made on the CODEC and CONEX BOFs.

<begin IESG Liaison written report>

WG Creation
============
Approved

 o KARP

Proposed for Approval

 o Internet Area Working Group (int-area)

Proposed for IETF Review

 o HTTP State Management Mechanism (http-state)

WG Rechartering
===============
Proposed for Approval

 o Handover Keying (hokey)

WG Chair Assignments
=====================

 o New Chairs assigned
   - LISP
   - KARP
   - OPSAREA WG
 o Recruiting chair
   - DNSOPS

<end IESG Liaison written report>

2.3. RFC Editor Liaison

Sandy did not participate in the call. Her written report follows.

<begin RFC Editor Liaison written report>

RFC Editor Report to the IAB

- RFC Editor tutorial was during IETF 76. There were about 20 people in attendance.

- AUTH48 pages have been made available from our site, and were announced on the rfc-interest list.

http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2009-November/001536.html

These pages are intended to make clear which author approvals (or ADs/WG chairs) are pending, as well as provide additional information about what may delay the publication of the document. These pages will not replace the current email-based AUTH48 process. That is, we will still send notifications, questions, and reminders to the relevant parties.

As an example of these pages, please see: http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc5690

- Transition to AMS is underway. AMS is working on setting up a test environment and we are helping to resolve issues as they arise.

- We have created an updated file containing the possible “Status of This Memo” paragraphs, and we are working with Julian Reschke to get them in sync, as sent to the ietf-discuss, xml2rfc, and rfc-interest lists.

http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2009-November/001584.html

However, the attached file is an updated one (from the one mentioned in the email above) that was created after Julian and I compared our results. At this moment, our text matches. However, I have seen the emails about potentially updating the text of the draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplate document. It sounds as though an email is in the works, so we will wait for an “official” message from the IAB on this issue.

- With the upcoming changes required because of draft-iab-streams- headers-boilerplate, we also intend to start including the ISSN number in the header of RFCs as

<document source>                                       <author name>
Request for Comments: <RFC number>             [<author affiliation>]
[<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate]
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]
Category: <category>
ISSN: 2070-1721                                          <month year>

Please let us know if there are any problems, as we intend to coordinate this change with the xml2rfc team as they are working on updating the Status of This Memo text blocks.

<end RFC Editor Liaison written report>

2.4. IRTF Chair

Aaron had a schedule conflict and was not on the call. No written report was submitted.

3. IETF 76 Review

3.1. Technical Plenary Assessment

The board spent about ten minutes recapping the recent technical plenary. Olaf noted that he had heard fairly good feedback, and Dave Thaler noted he had heard some suggestions for
providing more history on the development of punycode. John then added that it might be worthwhile to convert the presentation material into another format that would be more accessible to external parties. The plenary report in the ISOC IP Journal will provide some information on the topic, and the group agreed to coordinate with ISOC further on a possible encoding white-paper.

3.2. IAB Actions / Topics from IETF

John will draft some comments on the International Resource Identifiers (IRI) situation and send them out to the IAB.

4. IETF 77 and IETF 78 Plenary Topics

There was a discussion to refine the topics for the IETF 77 and IETF 78 plenaries. The Internet Observatory report will serve as the basis of the IETF 77 plenary, and will likely be coupled with a related topic. Danny is in the process of scoping that talk, and suggested adding material on content consolidation and the implications to user privacy.

The group agreed on ‘Congestion Economics’ as the general topic for the IETF 78 plenary. Vijay will invite Hal Varian to assist in developing the session. This plenary could end up as something of a follow-on to the Network Neutrality and Congestion Exposure discussions at IETF 75.

5. Anycast Draft

Olaf suggested a new informal process for tracking document reviews and assessing when IAB drafts are ready for community comments. The Anycast draft is the first to go through this process, and there was agreement to allow a bit of experimentation in order to find a balance between getting good reviews without imposing too much formal process.

The Anycast draft was adopted as IAB document, and Danny will update the draft based on the feedback so far.

6. Techchat Topic for 12/2 Meeting

It was decided to reserve some time during the 12/2 techchat for the RPKI topic. The rest of meeting time will be allocated to ‘routing economics’ and the upcoming RRG recommendation. Vijay will send out background material for the routing discussion.

7. RPKI Statement

The board has been working for several months on various issues of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), and a possible IAB recommendation on the structure of the certification hierarchy for securing global routing. The discussion during this call focused on the questions of (i) single vs. multiple roots, (ii) alignment with the existing number resources and allocation model, and (iii) recommendations for relying parties. After numerous emails over the past few weeks and another long discussion on this call, the board appeared to be approaching a consensus position. Stuart will revise the draft text and send it out for IAB review.

8. RSE Update

Olaf reported that the interviews for the Independent Stream Editor (ISE) are currently underway. He also confirmed that the IAOC will be negotiating to retain Bob Braden as a consultant while the Transitional RFC Series Editor (T-RSE) position is being stood up.

9. UNICODE Consortium

It was agreed that there was no urgent action for the IAB with respect to the Unicode Consortium; the board will continue to coordinate on the matter with the relevant liaison and working group.