Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2012-07-29

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2012»IAB Minutes 2012-07-29

Minutes of the 2012-07-29 IAB Business Meeting
Vancouver, BC, Canada

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

1.1. Attendance

PRESENT
  • Bernard Aboba (IAB Chair)
  • Jari Arkko
  • Mary Barnes (IAB Executive Director)
  • Marc Blanchet
  • Ross Callon
  • Alissa Cooper
  • Spencer Dawkins
  • Lars Eggert (IRTF Chair)
  • Mat Ford (ISOC Liaison)
  • Joel Halpern
  • Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Assistant)
  • Pete Resnick
  • Jon Peterson
  • Robert Sparks (IESG Liaison)
  • Dave Thaler
  • Hannes Tschofenig
GUESTS
  • Richard Barnes
  • Olaf Kolkman
REGRETS
  • Danny McPherson

1.2. Agenda

No agenda items were added.

1.3. Administrivia

No administrative items were discussed.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

The minutes of the 18 July 2012 business meeting remain under review.

1.5. Document status

1.5.1. draft-iab-identifier-comparison

Comments have been received on the most recent version of draft-iab-identifier-comparison; the document will be updated.

1.5.2. draft-iab-extension-recs

draft-iab-extension-recs was approved for publication and is now in the RFC Editor Queue.

1.5.3/4. draft-iab-privacy-considerations/draft-iab-privacy-terminology

draft-iab-privacy-considerations was last revised on July 16th. Three new issues have been opened based on the current review. [Note: there are two issues in the tracker on the terminology document (and an individual version of the doc), that need to be checked and closed out.]

1.5.5. draft-iab-dns-applications

A Call for Comment was issued, closing on August 16, 2012. Issues in the tracker that have been addressed need to be closed.

1.5.6. draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications

draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications is now expired. The document needs one final update based upon comments from Dave Thaler. There is one open issue in the tracker.

1.6. Liaison Reports

1.6.1. ISOC Liaison Report

–Begin ISOC Liaison written report–

  Internet Society Liaison Report to the IAB
  23 July 2012

  Topics:
  I. ISOC briefing panel at IETF 84
  II. WIPO
  III. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the Trans-
      Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA)
  IV. Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR/24), the 
      World Intellectual Property Organization
  V. Resolution on Internet and Human Rights (5 July 2012)
  VI. IETF Public Policy Guests
  VII. ITU TSAG / Council meetings

  I. ISOC briefing panel at IETF 84
  ISOC's briefing panel at the Vancouver IETF meeting will focus on 
  discussing the impacts and concrete takeaways following the World IPv6 
  Launch in June 2012.  For more details, see: 

http://www.internetsociety.org/node/20490

  II. WIPO
  ISOC’s Constance Bommelaer and Christine Runnegar participated in the 
  WIPO Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Audiovisual 
  Performances (20-26 June 2012, Beijing) where high-level 
  representatives of member states gathered to finalise the text for a 
  WIPO Audiovisual Performances Treaty. The signed treaty gives 
  performers intellectual property rights at the international level in 
  respect of their performances in audiovisual fixations. Successfully 
  concluding a treaty is important for WIPO to demonstrate that it 
  remains a viable place to achieve international agreement for 
  intellectual property legal norms. It was also a litmus test for 
  future discussions towards developing international legal norms on 
  exceptions for persons with print disabilities, libraries, and 
  archives.  

  The Internet Society was one of a relatively small number of Observers 
  present at the Diplomatic Conference and the only representative from 
  the Internet community. Civil society was not present. Constance 
  Bommelaer delivered the Internet Society's opening statement 
  highlighting our organisation, calling on WIPO member states to adopt 
  and implement the principles incorporated in the ISOC statement of 
  principles, and to protect and preserve the Internet.

  III. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the Trans-
      Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA)
  In the beginning of July and while negotiators were meeting in San 
  Diego, US, to discuss the TPPA, the European Parliament voted to 
  reject ACTA due to its controversial nature and its potential harm on 
  Internet technologies. The Internet Society is paying close attention 
  to the future of both the ACTA and the TPPA and has issued a press 
  release, insisting on the need for transparency and openness in 
  negotiations and, more importantly, the requirement for any 
  legislation not to harm the Internet, its architecture and underlying 
  technologies. Press release: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/
  calling-open-and-international-dialogue-trans-pacific-partnership-
  agreement-negotiations

  IV. Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR/24), the 
      World Intellectual Property Organization
  The Internet Society, represented by Konstantinos Komaitis, is 
  attending the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and 
  Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organization. 
  Discussions are focusing on exceptions and limitations for 
  educational, teaching and research institutions, the protection of 
  Broadcasting organizations, Exceptions and Limitations for the Persons 
  with Disabilities, and for Libraries and Archives. The Internet 
  Society will be submitting two statements - one on the issues 
  concerning the Visually Impaired Persons (VIP) and the other on 
  Broadcasting organizations. Both statements emphasize the need for any 
  new Treaty discussions to be conducted under a multistakeholder 
  framework and not to incorporate provisions contrary to the open and 
  distributed architecture of the Internet.

  V. Resolution on Internet and Human Rights (5 July 2012)
  The 20th Human Rights Council has adopted a Resolution on the 
  promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet. 
  The proposal was led by Sweden and was subsequently co-sponsored by 
  more than 80 countries. The Resolution affirms that the same rights 
  that people have offline must also be protected online, and recognizes 
  the global and open Internet as a driving force for development. It 
  also calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the 
  Internet. The Internet Society was one of the few non-governmental 
  actors which took advantage of the opportunity to participate in some 
  of the public drafting sessions leading to the adoption of this new 
  Resolution and suggested the inclusion of the notion of the “open 
  Internet” in the text, which was subsequently included in the final 
  document. ("Recognizes the global and open Internet as a driving force 
  in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms"). 
  In a context of increasing pressures to encourage the use of technical 
  measures to address various public policy objectives, this Resolution 
  sends a very positive signal in favor of a rights-based and open 
  Internet. For the text of the resolution see: 
  ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/d_res_dec/A_HRC_20_L13.doc

  VI. IETF Public Policy Guests
  Building on our public policy program from IETF 83, ISOC is inviting 
  another small group of public policy officials to attend the first 
  part of IETF 84.  In Vancouver, we’ll have guests from Papua New 
  Guinea, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Guatemala, and Canada.  We are 
  building the agenda now and, like the last meeting, will offer them 
  the opportunity to meet in small groups with key experts on areas of 
  interest and to attend a few of the Working Groups and Plenary 
  sessions. At least one official has identified these issues as being 
  of particular interest: security, Internet charging and management and 
  governance of Internet resources. Additionally, as a result of the 
  Paris public policy program, engineers from Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and 
  Cameroon are attending IETF 84 as part of the IETF Fellowship program.  

  VII. ITU TSAG / Council meetings
  ISOC attended the recent ITU TSAG and ITU Council meetings.  
  Discussions at both meetings are an important precursor to the WTSA 
  and WCIT in Dubai later this year.  At TSAG, issues related to MPLS, 
  A-Series Recommendations (including Supplement 3 related to IETF), and 
  the ITU-T work program were all debated.  At the Council meeting, 
  Member States took some very minimal steps forward on greater 
  transparency of ITU processes, in particular the WCIT. 

  ISOC’s reports on these meetings may be found here:
  TSAG: https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/ITU-
  TSAGMeeting_June2012.pdf
  Council: https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/June2012-
  ITU-CouncilMeeting.pdf

–End ISOC Liaison written report–

1.6.2. NomCom Liaison Report

Marc reported that the NomCom Chair has asked for input on the IAB’s
profile. Dave Thaler told Marc that he would send him what was sent
to the NomCom last year.

2. IETF 84 Agenda

Bernard briefly reviewed the IAB schedule for IETF 84.

3. Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking

Richard Barnes presented draft-barnes-blocking-considerations to the board for consideration. The board agreed to adopt the document in the IAB Stream once the open issues in TRAC are addressed.

4. IANA Evolution

Jari reported that the IANA Evolution team has been planning for the meeting with NTIA on Tuesday, to discuss expectations for the working relationship with IANA moving forward.

5. ICANN Nomcom and BoT appointments

The board agreed to re-appoint Ole Jacobsen as the liaison to the ICANN NomCom. Bernard will send an announcement.

The IAB has been asked to provide a selection to serve as IETF Liaison to the ICANN Board of Trustees by 18 September 2012. Thomas Narten is the current liaison; he can continue to serve until the IAB selects a successor.

6. Mobile Code (SDN, Javascript, etc.).

Jon and Hannes led a discussion on mobile code. Following are the slides presented during the meeting.

–Begin Mobile Code Slides–

  1. Mobile Code
     Hannes Tschofenig, Jon Peterson

  2. Early Days of the Web
    - 1992: Jim Gosling (Sun) was working on Java. Initially designed 
      for Set-top-box applications. 
      * Java was meant to provide a “Write once, run everywhere” model
      * Was successful as a server-side technology but it failed on the 
        browser-side. 
    - 1995: Brendan Eich (Netscape) developed LiveScript.
      * Netscape had an alliance with Sun (to compete with Microsoft).
      * Sun wanted Netscape to abandon LiveScript (in favor of Java) 
      * Netscape did not believe in Java’s success and had not enough 
        time put Java into their browser.
      * Netscape changed LiveScript into JavaScript to make Sun happy.
    - 1996: Microsoft copied JavaScript
      * For trademark reasons they couldn’t call it JavaScript and 
        called it Jscript
      * Microsoft did a great job in copying (the good and the bad 
        features). This ensured that it worked in the same way 
        everywhere.

  3. ECMAScript
    - 1998: W3C didn’t want to work on JavaScript and so Netscape went 
      to the European Computer Manufacturers Associations (ECMA) to get 
      it rubber-stamped. 
      * Did not work since Microsoft was quite strong there and didn’t 
        want to change anything. 
      * Since Sun had the trademark on JavaScript ECMA published it as 
        ECMAScript. 
    - Edition 3 - 1999
      * http://bit.ly/kbGCer
    - Edition 4
      * Never finished
    - Edition 5 - 2011
      * http://bit.ly/8qMSR 
    - Lack of progress in ECMA helped the language to be very stable. 
      This helped to make Ajax happen.
    - A lot of confusion caused by the large number of names for one 
      language. 

  4. Ajax
    - 2000: Microsoft developed XMLHttpRequest. Ajax as a technology was 
      ready.
      * The page is an application with a data connection to the server.
      * When the user does something, you send a JSON message to the 
        server, and receive a JSON message as the result. 
      * Benefits:
        o You get applications without installation.
        o Highly interactive and more efficient (updates instead of page 
          replacements).
    - In 2005 Jesse James Garrett coined the term Ajax that describes 
      the ability to eliminate reloading the whole page. 
      * In 2000 the browsers weren’t ready for the technology yet. 
      * Around 2005 browsers were stable enough platform with IE6 and 
        Netscape 4. (Lead time ~ 5 years)
    - By 2007 JavaScript became the most popular language in the world. 

  5. JSON
    - 2001: Douglas Crockford discovered JSON. 
      * It did, however, exist in the language from the beginning (for 
        object definitions)
      * Native support of JSON parsing in 5th edition of ECMAScript with 
        JSON.parse().
    - Turns out that folks liked it more than XML. 
      * Easier integration into JavaScript programs: why does data need 
        to be represented as document formats?
      * Had a tremendous impact for the development of non-SQL database. 
        Examples: CouchDB, MongoDB.
    - Has an impact on standardization
      * New standards that replace existing XMLEnc/XMLDSig -> JOSE
      * Encoding of data is relevant for standardization (see heavy 
        usage of XML throughout IETF standards)
    - Library support for nearly all programming languages:
      * See http://json.org/
      * JSON is language independent (despite it’s relationship to 
        JavaScript)

  6. JavaScript
    - Not only used in browsers
      * Operating systems, and widget platforms.
      * Applications (Photoshop, Dreamweaver)
      * Silverlight, and AIR
    - Also used on the server-side with Node.JS
    - Language be used by people who have no programming skills.
    - Enabled mashups – code from different sources is combined into a 
      single application (dynamically, and in run-time)
    - Has a couple of deficiencies as well (e.g., global variables 
      enabling Cross-Site Scripting attacks, only a single privilege 
      level)
      * Not all security vulnerabilities are due to JavaScript but also 
        due to the DOM and the way how the SOP works.
    - Attempts to fix language via secure sub-set of JavaScript 
      http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/ or new language like Dart 

http://www.dartlang.org/

    - Currently, there is only one Web programming language that is 
      supported by all browsers. 

  7. JavaScript, cont.
    - Today, JavaScript competes with native applications.
      * A native application is one that is written for a specific 
        operating system. 
    - New functionality to make JavaScript more powerful is standardized 
      by W3C 
    - Examples: offline storage, geolocation, crypto
      * Geolocation: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html
      * Offline storage: http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/ 
      * Device access: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/ 

  8. Example
    - Web server makes the following Webpage available:

      <!DOCTYPE html>
      <html>
      <body>
      <p>Click the button to wait 3 seconds, then alert "Hello".</p>
      <button onclick="myFunction()">Try it</button>

      <script type="text/javascript">
      function myFunction() {
        setTimeout(function(){alert("Hello")},3000);
      }
      </script>

      </body>
      </html>

  9. Example, cont.
    - When a client opens the Web page then the page + the JavaScript 
      code is transferred from the server to the client and executed.

  10. The Future
    - Native applications will not disappear. 
      * They may or may not use standardized protocols. 
      * Needed for those cases where JavaScript functionality is not 
        sufficient (such as high-end games).
    - The smart phone space brings new challenges for application 
      developers. 
      * The Web community can re-use their favorite language, 
        JavaScript, also for these developments.
    - New JavaScript extensions are being developed all the time by the 
      W3C to make them feature-equivalent to native applications.
      * Example: Web Cryptography WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/ 
    - Maybe some JavaScript weaknesses get fixed with Dart.

–End Mobile Code Slides–

After discussion, the board agreed to update the post-standardization document (draft-tschofenig-post-standardization) to address the concerns raised in this presentation.