Minutes of the 13 May Teleconference were approved.

(see below)

It was noted that the question of what ‘sources’ were used to review a IETF document for ‘quality’ has been raised on the problem-statement list, and it was noted that this the IAB Security Considerations document is being used as one of the reference sources.

IESG
Rob Austein:, Bert Wijnen:

• IESG continues discussion on a possible alternative WG Decision Making Process, although it is low priority discussion
• Erik Nordmark has decided to step down as IESG member as soon as another AD is available. Harald has unofficially notified Nomcom and also asked the IETF Executive Director to notify Nomcom officially.
• IESG is documenting how/when a WG can be closed “early”, that is how/when we can close a WG when there is still a doc in the RFC-Editor queue. Normally we would wait till docs clear RFC-Editor queue. But if WG is very inactive and there were no issues on the outstanding docs then we can close down early (decision on case by case basis).
• IESG has issued a 4 week IETF Last Call for their IESG charter (draft-iesg-charter-03.txt). Basically it is meant to document the charter of the IESG as presently understood.

RFC Editor
Joyce Reynolds:

• Planned RFC Editor visit/meeting with Leslie & Harald this month.
• RFC Editor IPv6 server discovering some “interesting” IPv6 routing snafus. (ISI is advertising a /48 which is filtered by some networks.)
• We are finalizing the “DNP at this time” policy (already invoked once on May 28th – <draft-srisuresh-ospf-te>) between IESG and RFC Editor. “RFC Editor Individual Submission Policy” sent to IAB on June 3.
• Researching copyright issues on independent submissions.
• We are formulating a response to the IESG on our preferences with regards to normative/informative reference splits on experimental/informational RFCs.
• Revising rfc2223bis per Last Call inputs. 05 version of 2223bis was submitted to internet-drafts@ietf.org on June 5.
• RFC Editor “edit” processing queue dropped to lowest level in recent memory, but grew again last week due to a surge of productivity by the IESG.
• RFC Editor is planning to publish numerous lingering independent submissions. (Specifically, those in “TO” with the IESG for over a year.)
• Have instituted an experimental policy of running ABNF checker on final version of documents that use significant ABNF, just as we run MIB compilers on final MIB RFCs. Plan to require compliance in the absence of reasonable excuse.

  The RFC Editor charter draft was discussed and the current state of this document was queried, together with the longer term options. The RFC Editor has sent a brief charter to Leslie and Harald, and this will be forwarded to the IAB.

IRTF
Vern Paxson:

• The IRTF Chair has converged on a charter for the Peer-to-Peer RG, with co-chairs Bill Yeager and Bobby Bhattacharjee. All that remains now is to set up the mailing list and web page.

  The IAB discussed the current state of the Anti-Spam RG.

ISOC
Lynn St Amour:

• Margaret Wasserman was recently appointed to ISOC’s Board of Trustees. In addition, Steve Crocker and Pindar Wong were also appointed and Rosa Delgado was re-appointed. All will serve 3 year terms effective with the next BoT meeting on the 12th and 13th of July, immediately preceding the IETF in Vienna. Formal ratification of the election results is dependent on the outcome of the challenge period which closes June 19, 2003. The BoT meeting will be held in Vienna in the IETF venue and the Board meeting is open to the public.

ITU-T
Scott Bradner:

W3C
Leslie Daigle:

ICANN – TLG
Geoff Huston:, Mike St Johns

ARIN has forwarded to the IAB some details relating to a request for address (appended).

In considering this matter, the IAB noted that there has been an IPR interest filing with the Teredo technology. The current Internet Draft describing the technology relating to the allocation request is
draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt (6th June 2003).

The IAB determined to advise ARIN that this allocation should not proceed as an RIR allocation, on the basis that the draft proposes that IANA allocate a Teredo IPv6 service prefix and a Teredo IPv4 multicast address. An IANA allocation would be made as part of the normal process of RFC publication within the Internet Standards process, if this draft was to be published in its current format following the normal process of IETF review. To request an RIR allocation in advance of the IETF review of this proposal was premature in terms of IETF process and the associated IETF instructions to IANA regarding such allocations.

The IAB considered a proposal to undertake a BOF or an Open IAB Meeting on addressing-related architectural issues as a means of the IAB gathering input from the IETF community on these issues. It was determined to request the Secretariat for an Open Meeting slot, and to use a meeting framework of an introduction, a sequence of short prepared issue statements on this topic. It was noted that there was no intention of resuming WG-based discussions in this open meeting, and the meeting would be coordinated with the IESG and the relevant WG chairs to ensure that the objectives of the meeting as an information gathering exercise were achieved.

The IAB noted that there are no currently active RGS where an IAB review would be timely at present, and it was proposed to consider the more general role and positioning of the IRTF in the IAB meetings that week.

8.1 IAB Confirmation of Nominated IESG Candidate

The IAB considered the process it would use concerning confirmation of the nominated candidate to fill the casual vacancy of an Area Director for the Internet Area.

The IAB agreed to adopt the following process for confirmation:

1. Positive vote for confirmation – a majority of the sitting members who aren’t disqualified or haven’t recused themselves must vote to confirm the candidate, otherwise the candidate is rejected.

2. The IETF chair is disqualified from voting or participating in the discussion on the IESG slate or IESG candidates. The IAB may ask the IETF chair questions about the needs of the IESG prior to the IAB being advised of a nominated candidate.

3. The chair of the IAB can choose when to call the question with the following conditions:

   1. Must not call the question any earlier than 1 week after the IAB is informed of the nominated candidate
   2. Must not call the question prior to a teleconference which has this as an agenda item.
   3. Must call the question by whatever deadline generally imposed – usually within 2 weeks after the IAB is advised of the nominated candidate.

4. Vote may be by voice vote during a teleconference, by email ballot to the iab members’ mail list, or by secret ballot to the Executive Director and Chair as agreed to by consensus. If there is no consensus, vote will be by secret ballot.

The IAB also stated the view that in the event that a sitting IAB member was nominated to replace the casual vacancy in the IESG, the IETF Executive Director would be informed of the casual vacancy only upon confirmation of the initial nomination, and the Nominations Committee would then need to undertake a subsequent nominations process for the IAB casual vacancy.

8.2 Intellectual Property Rights issues for the IRTF

The IRTF chair voiced the concern that within the context of a Research Group activity an individual may advocate a research approach in which they have undisclosed IPR and the RG puts effort into an activity that is of benefit to the original advocate.

It was noted that the IRTF does not produce Standards, and the consequent issues of industry forcing and implied imposition of cost are not as directly relevant to IRTF outputs. There was some noted implications in the decisions of a RG to operate in an Open of Closed manner with respect to RG membership. The ethical dimension of research collaboration and due disclosure was also noted in discussion.

The IRTF chair was referred to IETF legal counsel for further consideration of these issues.

8.3 Consideration of joint IAB / IESG retreat

The IAB noted that this could be a useful activity, but was looking for a location that was relatively close to the majority of IAB /IESG members and where there had been substantive preparation in the meeting materials to allow the retreat to be productive. At this stage it remained an option to hold this in October in a North American location., contingent on the agenda planning being undertaken.