Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2010-12-22

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2010»IAB Minutes 2010-12-22

Minutes
IAB Teleconference

2010-12-22

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

1.1. Attendance

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

1.2. Agenda

A discussion of the proposed Internet of Things (IOT) workshop was added to the end of the meeting agenda.

1.3. Administrivia

The group briefly discussed whether to hold the scheduled techchat on 5 January, or reserve that meeting slot for IESG confirmation and/or a discussion of RFC Series Editor (RSE) next steps. They will make a determination later in the call.

1.4 Meeting Minutes

No meeting minutes were reviewed during this call.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1. ISOC Liaison

Lynn sent a short written report, and she highlighted the Internet ON (ION) conference, the 2011 ISOC BoT meeting schedule, and the update on the UN meeting that was sent separately. The third item was discussed further later in the call.

<begin ISOC Liaison written report>

ISOC’s Liaison Report to the IAB
December 22, 2011

Topics:
I. Internet On (ION) 2010
II. 2011 ISOC Board Meeting Dates

I. Internet ON (ION) 2010 – submitted by Leslie Daigle

The inaugural Internet ON! conference took place in San Francisco December 8/9. It went smoothly — the great agenda turned into very constructive and well-delivered presentations from our speakers. The conference was well-appreciated by attendees, who had an opportunity to hear more about Internet technology from the folks actually developing the specifications within the IETF, and in their products.

http://www.internet-on.org

II. 2011 ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting Dates

The 2011 ISOC Board of Trustees meeting dates are as follows:
. 02-03 April – Prague, Czech Republic
. 16 May 2011 – Teleconference
. 30-31 July – Quebec City, Canada
. 19 September – Teleconference
. 22-23 October – TBD (ICANN Site)
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/meetings.php

<end ISOC Liaison written report>

2.2. IESG Liaison

Ron resent the report from last week, and noted that it primarily covers the difficult coordination with the ITU on MPLS. Ross added that a sub-group of the IAB, IESG, and ITU liaisons had just held a phone meeting on how to coordinate interactions with the ITU, given their recent actions concerning IP, MPLS, and Internet governance. Bill Graham (ISOC) also participated in the call.

<begin IESG Liaison written report>

1. Disruption In the MPLS WG meeting

We had a disruption 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. Non-IETF MPLS-TP OAM requirements presentation

One of the main complainants at the MPLS WG meeting was Han Li. 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 his view of requirements for MPLS-TP deployment. This seemed to calm the situation somewhat and even attracted some questions from other carriers.

<end IESG Liaison written report>

2.3. RFC Editor Liaison

Glenn gave a short verbal report at this point, and provided more information later in the call. The RFC production house is operating normally, on a seasonally adjusted basis (i.e., there are usually fewer documents being processed during this part of the calendar year). In the last day there has been improved discussion on the rfc-interest mailing list – more focus on substance of the draft. Dave Thaler, Ted Hardie, and Olaf have all commented. Glenn is trying to respond to all comments after a day or so of consideration. The citation committee has finished up their major work items, and should have a recommendation in January.

<begin RFC Editor Liaison written report>

RFC Editor Report to the IAB
Wednesday, 22 December 2010

RFC Editor Operations

November Statistics (final)
Sub: 20
Pub: 15

December Statistics (partial, as of 21 Dec)
Sub: 14
Pub: 10

The low count for November is largely due to IETF ’79 and the US Thanksgiving holiday. The low December (to date) count is due to the beginning of the December holiday season and the consequential reduced availability of authors. This results in more documents in the production queue, which is expected to lead to increased output in Q1 2011. Both low December counts and high Q1 counts are consistent with historical numbers.

A part-time Production Center Editor, Rebecca van Rheenen came on board during November. Training and orientation are underway.

The Production Center will be closed during the holiday week.

TRSE Activities This Period

The document, “Motivations for Recommendations” was published on Friday, 17 December, first in PDF form, and then as a draft (draft- kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-motivations-00) on Monday, 20 December. The original target date of 29 November was delayed due to illness. During production, there was not enough time for a general, final review pass by the RSAG. I instead put out a call for individual RSAG members to review the document as it was being developed. The final version was completed with extensive input from and discussion with Scott Bradner, Joel Halpern and Nevil Brownlee, and a review by Brian Carpenter. My thanks to all for their generous support and guidance.

On Monday (yesterday), comments began to appear on the rfc-interest list. I will respond to those as they arrive. I will be available over the holidays to respond to questions and comments on the list. It is encouraging that there has recently been a distinct improvement in the quality of comments. I look forward to that trend continuing, and am doing what I can to support it.

I am presently sending individual notices to many who have been active participants in these discussions, to encourage them to continue to participate. I expect most will be inactive until the holidays are over.

RFC Citations RSE Committee

The RFC Citations RSE Committee, chaired by Craig Partridge, continues. I understand from Craig that he is finishing a major project at his regular job and should become active on the committee in January.

regards,
Glenn
Transitional RFC Series Editor

<end RFC Editor Liaison written report>

2.4. IRTF Chair

Aaron reported that he had participated in the Privacy Workshop, and that he has begun coordinating with Lars Eggert, who will take over as IRTF Chair in the coming months. Olaf suggested adding Lars to the IAB wiki and mailing lists at the same time as the incoming IAB members. Aaron will confirm this plan with Lars.

<begin IRTF Chair written report>

- Attended (IAB?) privacy workshop at MIT on Dec 8-9

- Started IRTF Chair transition calls with Lars

<end IRTF Chair written report>

3. ICANN TLG discussion and Board Liaison Role

The IAB resumed discussion of the ICANN TLG and the nature of the liaison relationship with the ICANN Board. An important component of this discussion has been ensuring that the ICANN Board, either through the experience of its members or through coordination with liaisons and outside bodies, has sufficient technical expertise when making policy decisions that could affect the stability of the Internet. The board discussed the structure of the ICANN BoT appointment process and the existing liaison relationship. At present Thomas Narten, the IETF liaison to ICANN, works fairly independently on behalf of the IETF, rather than as a closely directed representative of IAB. Thomas also has provided a degree of organizational continuity and technical expertise in recent years as various ICANN Board members have turned over.

The IAB considered possible directions the ICANN general council could take, and how the IAB might best coordinate with them going forward. It was agreed to have a smaller group develop some ideas in this area and share them with the rest of the IAB. Danny, Olaf, Lynn, John, and Spencer took the action.

4. RFC Editor Model Status

Olaf summarized the progress, stating that he would have liked to have used this call to get closer to a decision on the way forward, but that the motivations document is likely too recent for people to have read it and fully commented. The upcoming holidays will also slow down convergence on the issues, but he noted that at some point the IAB will need to decide they are comfortable with the level of community input and make a decision. That is the next key step for the IAB – to make sure there is internal agreement on the way forward that is informed by the community discussion. After that the Model document will need to be updated, eventually to be published via the IAB stream. Olaf again asked board members to raise any issues they’ve uncovered in the latest drafts to the rfc- interest mailing list. Russ emphasized this point as well, so that the community will have seen what IAB members are thinking. Dave Thaler added that he had commented both on the list and privately with Glenn, and that many of his earlier questions had been addressed by the Motivations document.

There was agreement within the IAB to focus first on the high-level characteristics of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) role (e.g., level of management authority), and then drill down on the implementation details. Although the timeline for appointing an RSE has slipped, there was the general sense that the series could survive for a few months without an RSE without experiencing major problems, if other elements of the model are in place (e.g., production center, RSAC / RSOC, etc.). Russ noted that in the worst case any non-standard issues could be escalated to the IAB directly. This led to a discussion of an IAB member volunteering to act as an Interim POC until an RSE can be hired. Olaf was willing to consider this role, since he is stepping down as IAB chair in March.

The group then returned to another high level question – whether the RSE should be more of a technical editor from the community, or someone with substantial publication experience. Ted Hardie had raised this question on the mailing list, and Glenn will clarify his recommendation over the next few days. He noted that this framing of the choice has been common in the past, but that it does not well describe the options in the revised model. There was agreement by the board to precede in a way that does not disrupt the streams model of the RFC series. The discussion then moved to various options for editing and progressing a revision to RFC 5620.

Glenn closed the agenda item by summarizing the 3 primary dimensions currently being discussed by the community:

- scope of the series editor (narrow or broad)
- oversight to ensure community involvement (IAB/RSAG, ROEC)
- nature of the RSE and overall RFC Editor function working methods

Further discussion was directed to the rfc-interest mailing list.

5. Nomcom Update and Plan to Confirm the IESG Slate

Spencer sent a status summary to the IAB list. The Nomcom expects to deliver the IESG slate sometime before 10 January. It will be divided into two parts: TSV candidate (for which Marcelo is recused) and all other positions. Russ and the other liaisons are also recused from the confirmation process.

Olaf then reminded the group of the upcoming IESG confirmation, for which a decision on 15 January is expected. He proposed reserving the January 5th techchat slot for a discussion of the IESG slate, if it is available at that time. Spencer noted that the Nomcom was likely to deliver the slate sometime after 1/5, and Olaf suggested a follow-on discussion of the RFC Editor for that timeslot instead. He added that the community call-for-comments on IAOC candidates ends on 15 January, after which the IAB will need to make a timely selection.

6. Reports from Recent Events

6.1. IAB Privacy Workshop

Jon reported that the Privacy Workshop went well. They had a good agenda and the turnout was as expected. He sent a small writeup to the mailing list covering the major topics of discussion, and notes from the meeting will be published shortly. Three actions from the meeting were: a consideration for a privacy directorate in the IETF Security Area, development of a privacy considerations document, and an interest by the Tor Project developers to bring related technology into the IETF. Bernard noted that a number of regulatory agencies took major actions in the week following the workshop, and Jon pointed out the comment period on the FTC ‘Do Not Track’ proposal(s). A short discussion followed, and a rough plan emerged for ISOC to submit a statement to the FTC, informed by the W3C, IAB, and IETF.

Editor’s note: The meeting minutes and press release are now available here:

http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/minutes.html http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/privacy/2010-privacy-workshop-press-release.pdf

6.2. Meeting with the European Commission (EC)

Olaf gave a report on the recent meeting with the EC Directorate on Information, Society, and Media. Olaf, Hannes, Russ and Andrei participated for the IAB, along with a few members of the IESG. At the meeting they summarized the Internet architecture, the structure of the IETF, and the process for standardizing a protocol as an RFC. He felt the meeting was fairly constructive given the very different organizational worlds of the two sides. Olaf explained to the EC staff that the IAB and IETF cannot take on any formal relations with public authorities, but still tried to establish some level of commitment to ongoing coordination. There was a Commissioner’s cabinet member there for the whole meeting, and the Director General even participated in part of the session. There was a discussion about guidelines for researchers, and some thought about how to connect IETF experience with researchers who are looking for relevant questions to answer.

Olaf will forward email from Isidro Laso, Scientific Officer of the EC Directorate, containing a list of research areas (including the topic in 7.1 below).

6.3. United Nations Meeting

Lynn sent the final version of the UN letter to the IAB. She, Bill Graham, John, Russ, and Olaf worked on it. There is an introduction to the IETF with a focus on the open working methods of the organization, which map well to what the UN is trying to do in their processes. The letter requests the UN committee to better describe the problem they are trying to solve through any changes to the governance model.

Undersecretary Sha seems to be interested in a new inter- governmental entity that would assume more control, while ISOC and others have argued that the current multi-stakeholder model has worked very well, both operationally and in terms of allowing for broad participation. Still, the sense from the meeting was that the UN will push forward with some new process for exerting greater control over Internet governance. It is likely one or more working groups will be set up to allow some input from non-governmental bodies going forward; Bill Graham was asked to drive the nomination process for one of these groups. John noted that there are a relatively small number of individuals in the IETF community who have been doing the lion’s share of this work, and that the IETF needs to improve their process for training the next group.

7. Any Other Business

7.1. Workshop on Machine-to-Machine Networking

During agenda item 6.2. above there was a short discussion about an upcoming workshop on machine-to-machine networking, also referred to as the Internet of Things. Jari and Hannes have been pushing to host such a workshop before the Prague IETF, but the IAB has not yet decided as a group to sponsor it, and several board members expressed concerns that (i) the IAB work list is already quite large and (ii) that it will be difficult to successfully organize a workshop that quickly. Olaf asked the group to comment on the mailing list, where they will try to find consensus by early January.