Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2010-01-27

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2010»IAB Minutes 2010-01-27

Minutes
IAB Teleconference

2010-01-27

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

1.1. Attendance

PRESENT
  Marcelo Bagnulo
  Gonzalo Camarillo
  Stuart Cheshire

* Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)

  Vijay Gill
  Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
  Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
  John Klensin
  Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
  Gregory Lebovitz
  Andy Malis

* Danny McPherson

  David Oran (IAB liaison to the IESG)
  Jon Peterson
  Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)

* Dave Thaler

APOLOGIES
  Ron Bonica (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
  Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)
ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS:

* Patrik Faltstrom

Note: Aaron Falk, Danny McPherson, and Dave Thaler participated in part of the meeting (due to schedule conflicts). Patrik participated in item 5 only.

1.2. Agenda

A discussion of .local was added to the agenda. Jon Peterson noted that the Nomcom had not yet responded to the IAB’s questions, but that active discussions were ongoing.

1.3. Administrivia

Dow reminded the group of the upcoming BOF call on 1 February.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

No meeting minutes were reviewed during this call.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1 ISOC Liaison

Lynn was not on the call, but submitted the written report below. Olaf pointed out the ITU council work on IPv6, noting that it could involve the IAB at some point.

<begin ISOC Liaison written report>

Topics:

I. ISOC Invited to Provide Framing Remarks at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Open Internet Workshop
II. ITU Council Working Group on IPv6
III. IETF Journal
IV. ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting

———————————–
I. ISOC Invited to Provide Framing Remarks at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Open Internet Workshop

The Internet Society provided the framing remarks for the FCC January 13 workshop on “Innovation, Investment, and the Open Internet” at MIT in Boston. The remarks highlighted the importance of the Open Internet Model for innovation and investment, and emphasized the particular role for open standards processes like the IETF in furthering the growth of the Internet. This FCC workshop is one of several that are underway in conjunction with the FCC’s consideration of regulations to preserve the Open Internet (also known as net neutrality). Importantly, the FCC is actively reaching out to the Internet community as they begin to address a range of Internet policy issues. As part of the FCC’s Open Internet regulatory proceeding, ISOC filed comments outlining the importance of open standards and responding to some specific questions about the role that open standards bodies could play in providing definitions for things like “reasonable network management”. The remarks can be found at: http://openinternet.gov/workshops/innovation-investment-and-the-open-internet.html

II. ITU Council Working Group on IPv6

ISOC is preparing for the March 15-16 meeting of an ITU-T and ITU-D working group that will prepare a report on follow-up to the WTSA Resolution 64 on IPv6. Most importantly, the group has been asked to:

a). Draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large IPv6 block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing countries, as outlined in paragraph 23 above.

b). Further study possible methodologies and related implementation mechanisms to ensure ‘equitable access’ to IPv6 resource by countries.

c). Further study the possibility for ITU to become another Internet Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to manage a reserved IPv6 block.

d). Further study the feasibility and advisability of implementing the CIR model for those countries who would request national allocations…

The meeting is to prepare a report to the next meeting of Council, which will be in late April. That report will determine what sort of resolution goes forward to the Plenipotentiary Conference of the ITU in October. The working group is open to all Sector Members of ITU-T and ITU-D, including ISOC, so we will have the right to submit information papers, with the deadline of March 2. ISOC intends to participate as do some of the RIRs and ICANN, if they are permitted to do so, because not all are Sector Members.

III. IETF Journal

The new edition of the IETF Journal will be available shortly. A key theme of the issue is bandwidth and its management (theme of the ISOC briefing panel in Hiroshima, as well as a number of current IETF activities). It will also feature an update on the Kantara initiative, as well as the usual detailed plenary and chair reports.

IV. ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting

The next physical meeting of the ISOC Board of Trustees is scheduled to take place on March 27 and 28 in Anaheim, California. ISOC Board meetings are open and participation is welcome. The agenda will be available on the ISOC website in early March.

<end ISOC Liaison written report>

2.2 RFC Editor Liaison

Sandy introduced her written report. Olaf added that the ISE appointment will be covered during the IAOC meeting, and should be wrapped up tomorrow. It was also agreed to update the community on Bob Braden’s support, and the status of T-RSE selection.

<begin RFC Editor written report>

January 2010

1) Transition to AMS

- 12 January: Relatively smooth transition; we believe we have caught most of the nits, although trust you (and the community) will let us know if you uncover any glitches.

- Two users have noticed that some (somewhat obscure) features of ISI’s FTP server are not supported on the AMS Linux server. This will be reported to the rfc-interest list.

- We are training a new editor that is located in the AMS offices.

2) RFC Online update (adding RFCs from 1969-1976 to the repository)

- The ASCII files for over 30 RFCs were put online (PDFs were already available).
See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-online-2008.html for details.

December 2009

3) TLP 4.0 announced; frees Independent and IRTF streams for publication.

- Working with Bob Braden (as ISE) and Editorial Board
a) to determine which documents should have Full Derivative Works and which should have No Derivative Works, and
b) to explain to authors that used the 6.c.iii paragraph why it does not apply to their document.

4) RFC 5742 (3932bis) published; working with IESG to determine if any of the IESG notes should be removed or altered. If authors choose to have their document published “now”, we will publish as-is (i.e., including the originally requested IESG Note).

5) RFC 5741 published; RFC Editor using new headers and boilerplate material in published RFCs.

<end RFC Editor written report>

2.3 IESG Liaison

There was a short discussion about the need for a liaison with MPEG for coordination on the CODEC work. Two existing liaisons, 3GPP and ITU-T NGN, will also need to track the CODEC effort.

<begin IESG Liaison written report>

- Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

The IESG approved the charter for the codec working group. Peter Saint-Andre and Mike Knapp will serve as chairs. The WG charter can be found at http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/codec-charter.html.

The IESG chair (as well as other IESG members) recommends that the IETF establish liaisons for codecs. This will ensure that ITU-T is aware of the activities in this WG, and it will ensure that the WG has the most up to date information on existing codecs.

- Possible Appeal: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

The IESG is discussing a possible appeal regarding draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation, and an email to confirm rough community consensus about one specific detail has been sent out. Unless this email results in a significant amount of new information, we expect to have the RFC out soon.

- NETEXT Recharter

There is an ongoing discussion on the NETEXT mailing list regarding charter updates. However, the WG has yet to find a model that is acceptable to the entire group.

<end IESG Liaison written report>

2.4 IRTF Chair

Aaron introduced his written report, adding that he is in the process of identifying an IRTF RG for the Thursday review at IETF.

<begin IRTF Chair written report>

IRTF update:
Four RGs scheduled to meet at IETF-77: DTNRG, SAMRG, ICCRG, RRG

Reviewing draft charter on Virtual Networks Research Group. Will go out for broader review shortly with hopes of getting group chartered in time to get on the IETF-77 agenda.

Received proposal for an RG on building networks, i.e., networking devices within buildings such as lights and doors with communication devices.

The IRTF is sponsoring a tutorial on the NetFPGA experimentation platform at IETF-77. This is really lending the IRTF name to allow Nick McKeown from Stanford to hold a tutorial co-located with the IETF meeting.

Officially closed the end-to-end research group

draft-irtf-rfcs has been published as RFC5743

Removed Bill Arbaugh as co-chair of MOBOPTS (no longer interested in the position)

<end IRTF Chair written report>

3. Approach Toward EU Standardization Policy

Olaf provided background on the EU committee’s recent work in trying to improve the way they reference standards of organizations like the IETF, W3C, OASIS, etc. The committee had previously published a white-paper, to which the IAB responded:

http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/2009-08-28-IAB-EuroICT-Reply-final.pdf

The commission recently sent a follow-on questionnaire that points to a WTO/TBT code of conduct, and asks of IETF willingness to sign. Olaf drafted a response, which he forwarded to the IAB for review, and the group discussed on the call. One point of discussion was that the IETF follows its own rules, but that they are generally aligned with the proposed code of conduct. The questionnaire also raises the topic of funded work within the IETF. The board talked about how ISOC might be able to accept donations, but that the IETF is not oriented around guaranteeing particular results. The draft response will be refined over the next week.

Editor’s note: The IAB’s response can be found here:

http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/2010-02-05-IAB-Response-Euro-ICT-Questionnaire.pdf

4. RPKI Statement

The group reviewed the latest version of the RPKI statement; there was agreement that the text accurately reflected the IAB consensus.

Editor’s note: The IAB statement can be found here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07028.html

5. Liaison Message to Unicode Consortium

The IDNABIS WG, partly prompted by IAB work reflected in our IDN document (RFC 4690) a few years ago, designed a new set of standards that are now embodied in the IDNA2008 specification. A key element of that specification is the concept that the transfer to and from the Punycode-encoded ASCII-compatible (ACE) form should be a simple, straight-forward encoding, with as little mapping of one character into another as possible. The position that the Unicode leadership took when the original version of IDNA2003, was being developed was that it would be better to try and encode *all* of Unicode, including some controversial transforms between different code points that some consider to be equivalent but others do not. The current document being developed in the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) more closely follows this latter model. That causes it to contradict the IETF specification for encoding of domain names.

After a short discussion the board agreed to send a liaison on the matter; John and Patrik will draft text and send it to the IAB for review.

Editor’s note: The liaison correspondence can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file763.txt

6. .local Proposal

Olaf summarized a forthcoming document that is in progress that would establish an IANA registry for certain reserved DNS names. The need for such a registry was exposed by the multicast DNS specification that is currently being draft by Stuart. Another example is .localhost. Olaf has discussed this idea with a few interested parties; the registry would be an IANA maintained list.

Olaf will be updating the draft over the next few days, and will send the text to the IAB.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

7. IESG Slate Confirmation

Jon Peterson, IAB liaison to the Nomcom, reported that the Nomcom is still developing their response to the IAB’s questions. The IAB discussed the situation and the possible slate concerns, and agreed to continue deliberations on 3 February, once the Nomcom’s response is available.