Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2010-11-24

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2010»IAB Minutes 2010-11-24

IAB Teleconference


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

1.1. Attendance

   Bernard Aboba
   Marcelo Bagnulo
   Ross Callon
   Spencer Dawkins
   Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
   John Klensin
   Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
   Danny McPherson
   Jon Peterson
   Andrei Robachevsky
   Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)
   Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
   Dave Thaler
   Hannes Tschofenig
   Vittal Krishnamurthy (IAB Scribe)
   Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
   Ron Bonica (IESG liaison to the IAB)
   Glenn Kowack (RFC Editor Liaison)

1.2. Agenda

An agenda item related to the Liaison Tracker tool was added. This is the tool revision that Henrik is working on.

1.3. Administrivia

It was noted that there are two IAB documents out for internal review:


Dave Thaler provided some background on the second document, which was written during the previous IAB term. Olaf proposed a week for IAB members to conduct a final review and send comments on the two drafts. If no major comments are received, he will send them to the IETF-announce list for community call-for-comments next Wednesday.

1.4 Meeting Minutes

No meeting minutes were reviewed during this call.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1. ISOC Liaison

Lynn summarized the report she had sent to the IAB mailing list, and asked if there were any questions. Notable items mentioned in the report were the upcoming Privacy workshop, the ION meeting, BITAG, and ISOC funding for the W3C. She also stated that Leslie Daigle was looking for ideas on how ISOC can reach out and increase participation in the ION initiative.

Dave Thaler noted that one item in the report was related to the 7 December meeting of IPv6 providers. Lynn said that she would talk to Leslie for follow-up.

<begin ISOC Liaison written report>

ISOC Liaison Report to the IAB
Wednesday, November 24, 2010


I. ISOC Participation at the IAB Privacy Retreat
II. Internet ON!
III. ISOC’s Participation in the Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG)
IV. Internet Society Reconfirms Support for W3C with $ Donation

I. ISOC Participation at the IAB Privacy Retreat – submitted by Lucy Lynch

ISOC staff members from both the Trust and Identity and Public Policy teams are participating in the planning for the December IAB Privacy retreat. ISOC is also working with MIT to provide logistic support and sponsorship for the event.

II. Internet ON! – submitted by Leslie Daigle

The inaugural Internet ON conference will take place in San Francisco, December 8th & 9th. The program has shaped up very nicely to showcase important Internet technologies — emphasis IETF. The target audience is network, product and service engineers looking to stay ahead of the curve in terms of understanding and deploying emerging Internet technologies, through a unique opportunity to discuss the standards with the people who helped create them.

III. ISOC’s Participation in the Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) – submitted by Sally Wentworth

ISOC recently participated in a process to develop the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group’s (BITAG) organizational structure, operational
procedures and membership guidelines which are available at:

This will be an independent non-profit organization, and the work will be open to any person or entity interested in the mission of the BITAG who has, or can appoint an employee that has, the necessary technical expertise to participate in the technical work.

This effort has now moved beyond the planning stage and into implementation. ISOC intends to continue its participation in the BITAG as we believe the group has the potential to move the U.S. technical and operation discussion on network management forward with the input from a diverse group of engineers. The BITAG’s Executive Director, Dale Hatfield, has expressed his commitment to shepherding an open and transparent expert technical forum that will enable engineers to do what they do best: solve problems. The BITAG does not supplant existing Internet technical organizations, or preempt creation of other needed operational discussion forums.

ISOC participation in this endeavor will be led out of ISOC’s North American Bureau and with support from the office of ISOC’s Chief Internet Technology Officer.

IV. Internet Society Reconfirms Support for W3C with $1 Million Donation – submitted by Lynn St. Amour

At the November 2010 Internet Society Board meeting the ISOC Board reconfirmed its support of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) with a 1M USD donation to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This donation, the second installment of ISOC’s 2009 pledge of 2.5M USD over three years, will support the organizational evolution of W3C as outlined in Board Resolution 2009 – 33: Authorizing a donation to the World Wide Web Consortium (“W3C”) in support of their Organizational evolution.



<end ISOC Liaison written report>

2.2. IESG Liaison

Ron was not on the call due to a schedule conflict. Hannes reported that there was the regular IESG business ongoing, and that he will check for any other notable items and forward them onto the IAB. Ron later submitted the written report below.

<begin IESG Liaison written report>

1. Disruption In the MPLS WG meeting

We had an ambush attempt to get two I-Ds that were not on the agenda “presented”. The I-Ds have not been significantly discussed on the mailing lists for three months. An agenda request had been made and rejected because “there is more important stuff to be covered in our face-to-face time.” The agenda was not debated on the list, but a few hours before the meeting the chairs received mail saying “please reconsider.”

In the meeting there were suddenly 8 people at the microphone saying “It’s not fair”. One even tried to read a statement! Talking over the chairs, not accepting that they are not on the agenda, etc.

The AD handled this as a hum:
- who would like to return to the agenda
- who would like to close the meeting

Overwhelming to return to agenda.

2. China Mobile presentation

One of the main complainants at the MPLS WG meeting was Han Li of CMCC. He wanted to “present” an I-D co-authored by a number of people who support a non-IETF approach to MPLS-TP OAM. In the end we were able to find him 10 minutes in the Routing Area Working Group on Friday morning where he presented just the CMCC requirements for MPLS-TP deployment. This seemed to calm the situation somewhat and even attracted some questions from other carriers.

3. Back-channel meetings with CCSA

A couple of Cisco folk tried to lead a charge to build a bridge with CCSA. This took the form of a private meeting attended by some CCSA folk, representatives of the three big Chinese carriers, and a number of IETF MPLS-TP leaders. Ross Callon was there with a Juniper hat, but can report for the IAB.

The message seemed to be:
One of our carriers has invested financially and strategically in pre-standard MPLS-TP and would like that to be standardised. The CCSA is willing to make this a national standard, but also wants to force this to be an international standard.

As far as I could tell, there was no opening to hear the IETF view.

<end IESG Liaison written report>

2.3. RFC Editor Liaison

Glenn was not on the call at this point in the meeting, but later joined for discussion of the RFC Editor next steps (item 8 below). He also submitted a written report.

<begin RFC Editor written report>

RFC Editor Report to the IAB
Wednesday, 24 November 2010

RFC Editor Operations

October Statistics (final)
Sub: 25
Pub: 46

As projected, output numbers for October were quite high.
At this rate 2010 should be the second highest output year.
2010 numbers below are to date, not annualized.

Year    Pgs/Yr  pgs/doc  Docs/Yr
2010:     9856       29       338
2009:     7280       25       286
2008:     7562       26       290
2007:     9928       31       320
2006:    12649       28       459
2005:     8572       26       327

RFC Editor office hours at the Beijing IETF were well-attended by community members, via 16 separate meetings. Subjects included specific documents (8), process questions (2), general introductions (2), tools (2), and check-in questions (2).

During the general RFC Editor lunch, held during each IETF,
I asked all the attending stream leaders if they were happy
with this year’s Editor performance. All gave a positive review. (Olaf could not attend.)

TRSE Activities This Period

As planned, a new, condensed summary of TRSE draft recommendations was published and announced on the rfc-interest list. It is available at

This document brings together all previous documents and community comment on this topic, and is intended to be the basis for further community discussion. It was produced in lieu of a -01 update to the original, “draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00″. The new draft was produced in close cooperation with, and extensive help from, many members of the RSAG.

The new draft does not detail TRSE observations or motivations on which this specification is based. Those, and differences from RFC 5620, will be contained in a document to be published on 29 November.

Other Activities

The RFC Citations RSE Committee, chaired by Craig Partridge, continues up and running. No change since last report.

Transitional RFC Series Editor

<end RFC Editor written report>

2.4. IRTF Chair

Aaron was not on the call due to a schedule conflict. Olaf noted that he was expecting Aaron’s announcement about Lars Eggert’s appointment as incoming IRTF Chair. He will follow up with Aaron.

<no written report was submitted>

3. ICANN and Enhanced Cooperation

Olaf informed the IAB about the upcoming meeting at the United Nations, and that he had received an invitation from undersecretary Sha. Other groups in Internet community, such as ICANN, received a similar invitation. Bill Graham (ISOC) is working on getting speaking slots for the representatives of these groups. The members agreed that ISOC can represent the IAB in this meeting if no representative from IAB participates.

4. IAB Voting Procedures

The board has been discussing their procedures for informal voting. Marcelo noted that he had circulated an update that raised a few additional questions, and he received feedback from Olaf, Dow and John Klensin. It was suggested that he post the revised procedure and the associated comments on the internal IAB wiki page.

The members discussed at great length whether a person’s vote should count if he/she is not on the call, and thereby not part of the discussion / debate leading up to the live vote. It was agreed that in general such pre-votes should not be counted, but that some exceptions will need to be looked at further.

During this discussion, Dave summarized the two IAB decision-making documents: RFC2580, which describes the ’7 concur and no more than 2 dissent’, and RFC 3777, which talks about the simple majority rule. He also explained that the general principle is that things requiring a simple majority are those for which ‘no action’ is not an option, whereas for the 7-to-concur rule, no action is one of the viable options. For example, ‘Approval of IRTF Chair’ is an example where no action is not a viable choice, but RFC approval or adoption of a draft as IAB document are examples where choosing to take no action is OK. He proposed that this general principle should be on the Wiki. Olaf asked the board for a clarification of whether the IAB wanted a simple majority of current sitting members or a simple majority of IAB members present in that meeting. In the end there was all agreement further clarify procedures on the wiki, and then have a round of voting on which way to proceed.

Marcelo took the action to post the information on the Wiki.

5. Appeal Responses and IAB Member Recusal

This was the longest agenda item discussed, and centered around the following questions pertaining to IAB member recusal during appeal adjudication:

i. Can the recused members comment on the decisions made by the non-recused members?

There was rough consensus that a recused individual could comment, since recusal is a voluntary action undertaken by the recused because he/she has been personally involved in the activity for which the appeal was filed. (This does not apply to mandatory recusal rules, such as for the IETF chair, who would have been part of the IESG appeal process.)

ii. If comments are permitted, how should they be handled, and what parts of a decision can the recused members comment on?

Opinions expressed on this question varied. It was noted that recused people can comment on things that are *more general* than the specific points of the appeal at hand. This is beneficial since the recused individual can raise other points of view, and maybe provide pointers on re-phrasing the contents. This is a particularly relevant consideration when the individual is recused because they were involved in the topic area of the appeal, and therefore could be the most knowledgeable member of the IAB in this technical space. However, it was generally agreed that the recused should not comment on the specific decisions of the appeal, only on the more general portions (e.g. IAB guidelines for future cases).

A draft process was considered:

   The recused may send a peer response to non-recused members.
   The non-recused people members decide what to do with those
   The recused should focus comments on the general aspects.
   Non-recused members will make the final call on what is general
   area and what is specific to this particular appeal.

iii. Should the parts that recused members can comment on be in a separate document or in the same document?

Some members thought that it is more cumbersome to have a separate document. As these comments are generated as part of a particular appeal, which provides the rationale and context for the general recommendations, it would be simpler to do in the same appeal. Also, putting in a separate document requires a decision up front on what is specific and what is general.

The board also spent time discussing partial/varying degrees of recusal. The rough consensus was that persons with varying degrees of recusal would get proportionally varying degrees of consideration for their comments. The members agreed to post the currently followed process along with this meeting’s discussion points as a work flow on the Wiki. Dave mentioned that the IAB could use this workflow the next time and improve as we move along.

John Klensin explained that a person can isolate oneself from a discussion on how to handle the appeal – called recusal, and/or from submitting any comments on the proposed response. He suggested that an IAB member can choose to recuse from either one or both, with or without specific reasons for doing so. Hannes was concerned about the outside view on this process. He felt the half recusal, 3/4th recusal was very confusing. He suggested that either the member participate completely in the decision or not participate at all. As he put it, the recusal should be concern of others and not just the recused person – that others may suggest whether to recuse or not. It was agreed that although such suggestions may arise, it is the responsibility, and ultimately, the personal choice of each member to recuse or not.

6. IETF 80 Technical Plenary Topic

There was a short discussion of potential topics for the IETF 80 plenary – namely ‘The Future of Applications and Impact on Protocol Standardization’, ‘Internet Privacy’, and ‘IETF-Research Coordination.’ Hannes mentioned that there is a lot of recent work on the future of web apps, and that several relevant potential speakers would be available in Prague. Based partly on this fact, the board decided on the Future of Apps topic for the Prague IETF.

7. IAOC Appointment Update

Olaf reported that the call for nominations would be ending in 4 or 5 days, and that as of now two candidates had confirmed their willingness to serve in the role. He will send an email reminding the community of the deadline, after which candidate questionnaires will be distributed.

8. Planning for RFC Editor

Olaf summarized the current state of the T-RSE recommendations, noting that the recent draft is much cleaner and more accessible than the one reviewed at the IETF meeting. The plan is to conduct a discussion of the high-level components and choices on the RFC- interest mailing list. From that discussion the IAB will attempt to assess the community consensus. In mid-Dec, based on the state of the discussion at that time, the IAB will likely need to make a decision on next steps with respect to the T-RSE statement of work.

Glenn thought that this was a good plan. After the document comes out, they will have to see how many people come to the table to discuss the pros and cons publicly. He felt that the major dimensions are now known by interested individuals in the community.

Olaf made a specific request that IAB members review the latest documents, and raise any remaining issues on the public list. If no consensus emerges within the community, the IAB will have to make a decision based on the discussion that has taken place, and so he stressed the importance of having all key questions that the IAB will consider raised publicly.

9. Meeting Schedule for December

The December meeting schedule was shifted a bit to accommodate near term discussion items and the privacy workshop. Dow will send out a revised calendar.

Tentative (time permitting):

10. Security Workshop / IAB Work Model

This item was deferred due to time constraints.

11. Liaison Tracker Tool

This item was deferred due to time constraints.