IAB Minutes 2002-08-13 | Internet Architecture Board

As a followup on the issues of IESG process raised at the previous IESG plenary, it was reported that the IESG is discussing organizational and process options. It was anticipated that views from the IAB will be sought at a later stage within this process.

RFC EDITOR
The RFC Editor has reported on the state of the RFC Editor queue, describing the status of the documents in the queue, to the chair of the IETF and the IAB.

IRTF
Vern Paxson provided the IAB with an update on IRTF activities.

The Name Space Research Group has submitted a document
outlining the perspectives of some of the group members for RFC publication as an individual submission.

The IAB discussed with the IRTF chair the potential for some form of periodic IAB review of research group status reports. It was envisaged that such a process would allow for clearer understanding of current IRTF activities, more informed assessment of proposals for new research groups and better understanding of the potential to fold research group outputs into current IETF activities. Vern Paxson will circulate a proposal for IAB consideration along these lines.

The IAB discussed a proposal to form a simulation research group, noting the potential for simulation to support IETF protocol development, and noting that simulation is widely used as a research tool to assist in understanding the dynamics of protocol behaviour under certain conditions. There is also some interest in the potential use of simulation techniques as part of a more formal validation process for standards-track protocols. It was suggested that this proposal could be further refined and then presented as a BOF at the Atlanta IETF.

ISOC
Lynn St.Amour was not available to present a liaison report. Fred Baker (current ISOC BoT chair) said he had nothing to report.

ITU-T
Considered under Item 4.

W3C
Nothing to report.

PSO-PC and ICANN
The PSO PC members reported on the outcomes of the PSO PC meeting of the 24th July. The ISO application for PSO membership was not accepted by the PSO PC. The IETF representatives opposed this application on the grounds that the ICANN Board in July 2002 adopted a resolution which includes the winding up of the PSO, as per the IAB’s advice.

The period for nominations for a PSO-nominated ICANN Board member position closed without any nominations being received. The PSO PC, by majority vote, determined to extend the nomination period until the 15th August.

The IAB reiterated its recommendation that the IETF members of the PSO-PC cast votes on PSO decisions in such a manner that the PSO refrain from making any binding decisions in this interim period until the formal dissolution of the PSO.

4. ITU Liaison Responses

While the IAB is not in a position to make absolute undertakings in this respect, the IAB was happy to provide assurance that the current arrangements were not considered to be interim in any way, and that any change in delegation of a technical operator would be undertaken with due consideration of the interests of all interested stakeholders and with appropriate consultation.

5. IETF Nomcom Liaison Considerations

The IAB noted that a Nomcom liaison should be selected by early September.

6. Architectural Documents

RFC 1958

draft-iab-arch-changes-00.txt

draft-iab-considerations-00.txt

draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt

http://www.ana.lcs.mit.edu/anaweb/PDF/Rethinking_2001.pdf

It was noted that these documents are intended for different audiences and while they are relevant to consideration of the architecture of the Internet, they do not undertake the same function as RFC1958 in terms of an architectural specification.

The IAB concluded that it would be productive to close off the architectural changes activity, and refocus activity on a revision of the implications of the end-to-end principle in relation to Internet architecture.

7. Improving IAB BoF Review process

8. Meetings for the remainder of the year

There is insufficient interest to undertake a interoperability workshop in the latter half of 2002. A proposal for an IPv6 deployment security workshop was discussed by the IAB, looking at the issues involved with various IPv6-related mechanisms and their security implications. A proposal will be generated that describes this in further detail.

9. IAB/IESG participation in ICANN RSSAC

attached

10. IANA tasks and Whois data concerning .arpa tld

The IAB reviewed the recent discussion of technical and administrative contacts for the .arpa domain, and where there is overlap with the of the IETF IANA function, will ensure that the proposed task description is consistent with RFC3172.

ACTIONS and DOCUMENTS

Actions

IAB Mailer
IAB Network Management Workshop
RFC Submission review
ICANN Evolution and Reform Followup
IAB Research Agenda
ISOC Trustee Appointment Process
Response to ITU-T over e164.arpa Arrangements
IETF Process Review
IAB IPV6 Deployment Security Workshop

Closed / Completed Actions

Mobile Networks Workshop proposal
PSO-PC

Documents

IAB Considerations
draft-iab-considerations-00.txt
Security considerations, including common security attacks
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-sec-cons-05.txt
Security Mechanisms for the Internet
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-secmech-01.txt
IETF PSO-PC Process
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-pso-appointments-00.txt
IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-unsaf-considerations-02.txt
A Survey of Authentication Mechanisms
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-auth-mech-00.txt
Referential Integrity
Internet Architecture and End-to-End

Closed / Completed Documents

Recent Changes in the Architecture of the Internet
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-arch-changes-00.txt
Internet Telephony Architecture
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/tmp/iabvoip.pdf

FUTURE MEETINGS

These minutes were prepared by Geoff Huston; comments should be sent to iab-execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins

IAB Web page is at http://www.iab.org

Attachment

	Subject: [Re: RSSAC Attendees]
	Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:53:40 -0700
	From: Louis Touton
	To: Leslie Daigle
	CC: Jun Murai, John Crain

	As I believe John mentioned to Harald, the Root Server System Advisory
	Committee would like very much to have renewed IESG/IAB participation in
	the RSSAC's work.  (Please excuse the delay in getting this formal
	invitation to you; I'll accept the blame as ICANN secretary for not
	seeing that the invitation went out sooner.)

	Although most of the participants in the RSSAC (such as root-nameserver
	operators and RIR personnel) are involved in one way or another in IETF
	work, they participate in the RSSAC from their own, non-IETF
	perspectives.  In its early stages, the RSSAC had designated IETF
	representatives, but this practice fell dormant.  At its meeting in
	Yokohama, the RSSAC discussed the desirability of renewed IESG/IAB
	participation on the committee, and the members broadly supported the
	desirability of greater IESG/IAB participation.

	The RSSAC recognizes that IESG/IAB rely on volunteer resources, which
	are necessarily of limited quantity.  Nonetheless, the RSSAC believes
	that it would be very helpful to have designated IESG/IAB participation
	in the RSSAC for the following reasons:

	    1. IESG/IAB participation will provide a valuable information
	channel/liaison between the IESG/IAB and ICANN.  This should improve the
	information flow in both directions.  For example, the RSSAC members
	feel they would benefit from an IETF "management" perspective of the
	technical community's needs and expectations from the root-nameserver
	system.  Conversely, the RSSAC members feel that the IETF's work in
	developing technical standards and advice could benefit from a more
	detailed understanding of the operational circumstances faced by those
	involved in operating the system.

	    2.  The IETF (and particularly IESG/IAB) has a great deal of
	DNS-related expertise that is not reflected on the RSSAC.  It is
	important that the perspectives of the "users" (their needs, etc.), and
	not just those of the operators, be taken into account in the RSSAC's
	work.

	    3.  The RSSAC is chartered to provide the ICANN Board with technical
	advice specifically about the root-nameserver system.  Because the IESG
	and IAB play an important role in advising the ICANN Board on the
	technical implications of its actions more generally, close consultation
	between the RSSAC and IESG/IAB can assist in ensuring that the advice of
	the two bodies is given to the ICANN Board from a consistent knowledge
	base.

	    4.  Having a designated "official" liaison will help reduce
	misunderstandings between the RSSAC and IETF/IAB about each others'
	intentions/activities.

	The RSSAC would greatly appreciate the IESG and IAB designating
	representatives to participate in the RSSAC's work.  As to time
	commitments, the RSSAC ordinarily meets once at the venue of each IETF
	meeting, usually on the Sunday before the meeting.  The RSSAC maintains
	a mailing list at which committee business is discussed. The RSSAC also
	prepares various reports and advisory documents to ICANN; these are
	ordinarily done by working subgroups of the RSSAC.  The assistance of
	IESG/IAB representatives in these working groups would be welcome, but
	is not necessary.  What the RSSAC would value most is participation in
	its meetings plus the opportunity to consult with designated IESG/IAB
	representatives as specific matters of common interest may arise between
	meetings.

	On behalf of the RSSAC, I hope that the IESG and IAB will be able to
	find the resources to designate representatives to participate in the
	RSSAC.

	Best regards,

	Louis

Minutes IAB Meeting — Teleconference

ATTENDING

APOLOGIES

NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING

AGENDA

NOTES