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.
