Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2003-06-10

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2003»IAB Minutes 2003-06-10

IAB Teleconference

10 June 2003, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm US EST


Leslie Daigle — IAB Chair
Bernard Aboba
Harald Alvestrand — IETF/IESG Chair
Rob Austein
Patrik Fältström
Sally Floyd
Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
Mark Handley
Geoff Huston
James Kempf
Eric Rescorla
Mike St. Johns
Bert Wijnen — Liaison from the IESG
Lynn St. Amour — Liaison from ISOC
Vern Paxson — IRTF Chair
Joyce Reynolds — Liaison from the RFC Editor


Charlie Kaufman


Tuesday, 8 July 2003, 4:00pm EST.


  1. Rollcall, Agenda Bash and Previous Minutes
  2. Review of Action Items
  3. Review of Documents
  4. IAB Liaison Reports
  5. Updates from IETF Liaisons
  6. ARIN request for input re. allocation request
  7. Proposal: liaison appointments to non-international bodies
  8. IAB plans for Vienna IETF meeting
  9. Other Business


Rollcall, Agenda Bash and Previous Minutes

Minutes of the 13 May Teleconference were approved.

1. Review of Action Items

2. Review of Documents

(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.

3. IAB Liaison Reports

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 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.

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.

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.

4. Updates from IETF Liaisons

Scott Bradner:

Fred Baker, Steve Trowbridge and Scott Bradner are working on the ‘how to process a liaison statement’ process .

Leslie Daigle:

The next coordination call is scheduled for the 17th June.

Geoff Huston:, Mike St Johns

Nothing to report and no further activity arising from the CRADA report query.

5. ARIN request for input regarding an allocation request

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
(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.

6. Proposal: liaison appointments to non-international bodies

The IAB agreed that, following an opportunity for IESG consideration, the following procedure will be adopted by the IAB in the event of requests for liaison activity from National, Multi- National or Regional Organizations

Liaisons to National, Multi-National or Regional Organizations

This note describes the current approach of the IAB to liaisons to national, multi-national, or regional organizations.

  • General

    The IETF is an international body, and as such, does not generally provide or accept liaisons with non-international organizations or for non-international purposes. From time to time, it may be advantageous for the IETF to provide or accept a liaison a non-international organization (hereafter “the organization”) for the purposes of information exchange.

  • Selection of liaison

    The IAB is responsible for liaisons between the IETF and other organizations. The IAB may, at its discretion, select one or more active participants of the IETF to interact with the organization on the IETF’s behalf as liaison. In keeping with the localized nature of this particular type of liaison, and to minimize barriers such as travel and language, the IAB shall generally try to select a liaison who is a citizen or permanent resident of the country or countries that have chartered the organization. However, other considerations (e.g. need for specific technical expertise, lack of a local candidate) may result in appointment of a liaison from outside that region. The IAB shall prefer to select a liaison who currently does not hold a position as either an IAB or IESG member. At its discretion, the IAB may remove or replace such liaison at any time.

  • Role of liaison

    The exact role of the liaison is subject to the needs of the organization and the IETF. In general, the liaison should be an honest broker of information between the IETF/IAB/IESG and the organization, and should not represent personal opinion as official position of the IETF. Where appropriate, and where charged by the IAB, the liaison may provide the organization with technical information and opinion appropriate to their area of expertise, but must clearly indicate to the organization the origin of such information or opinion. The liaison should provide timely reports to the IAB on the substance of the interaction with the organization and should from time to time comment on whether there continue to be benefits to the IETF from such a relationship.

7. IAB plans for Vienna IETF meeting

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. Other Business

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.



  • Notification Mechanisms
    Leslie Daigle, Ted Hardie, James Kempf
    Status: James Kempf to draft a note on the topic of architectural issues relating to notification mechanisms. Circulate the note to Lisa Dusseault, Ted Hardie, Leslie Daigle and Ned Freed. Need to look at Lemonade WG work again as Lemonade was the prime motivator here.
  • IETF Protocol Parameter Registration
    Leslie Daigle, Harald Alvestrand
    Status: Followup actions after meeting with US DoC
  • DNS and IDN Document
    Rob Austein, Patrik Faltstrom
    Status: Coordinate IETF document between Ads and WGs

    •  Patrik to circulate current draft to IAB for review
  • IAB input to Security Architecture
    James Kempf, Charlie Kaufman
    Status: Generate a survey for the WG chairs to come up with a classification matrix to identify particular issues relating to the interaction of their WG activities and security considerations

    •  Prepare classification matrix
  • IAB Workshop on DOS Attacks
    Mark Handley
    Status: Initial scoping activity: a taxonomy paper on the various forms of attack. Also look at the role of a workshop and the potential players.

    •  Taxonomy document being prepared. Review progress in August
  • WG Status
    Leslie Daigle, All
    Status: Provide the IAB with periodic summaries of the current status of those working groups that they actively follow.

    •  Leslie to provide some guidelines for this activity
  • RFC Editor Charter
    Leslie Daigle
    Status: Circulate draft RFC editor Charter to IAB
  • ARIN Teredo Allocation Request
    Leslie Daigle
    Status: Draft a note indicating hat the IAB would be opposed to the RIR allocation for Teredo, and pass it to the IESG for review before responding to the RIRs
  • IAB liaison procedure
    Leslie Daigle
    Status: Pass a copy of the procedure to the IESG for information
  • IAB Open Meeting
    Leslie Daigle, Geoff Huston
    Status: Schedule IAB Open Meeting on IETF Agenda

    •  Geoff: prepare introduction

Closed Actions

  • IAB Workshops
    Status: Revisit workshops, and reconsider this along the lines of approach, topic, and logistics.
  • Address Architecture
    Leslie Daigle
    Status: Circulate Harald’s formulation of the constrained address architecture issue to the IAB

    •  This is the proposal for an open IAB meeting / possible BOF at the next IETF mtg.


  • Security considerations, including common security attacks

    Eric Rescorla
    RFC Editor
    Status: RFC Editor (submitted 13-Feb – AUTH queue state)

    1.  (current)
  • Security Mechanisms for the Internet

    Charlie Kaufman, Steve Bellovin
    Status: Revising

    1.  (current) incorporate comment into final draft
    2.  (next) new draft
  • A survey of Authentication Mechanisms

    Eric Rescorla
    Status: Editing

    1.  (current) 01 draft being prepared, with expansion of current [TODO] sections of the -00 draft
    2.  (next) new draft
  • Internet Architecture and End-to-End

    James Kempf, Rob Austein
    Status: Editing

    1.  (current) 03 draft being prepared with e-2-e interest list comments integrated
    2.  (next) new draft
  • Internationalized Resource Identifiers

    Leslie Daigle
    Status: Drafting

    1.  (current) Leslie to review the draft
  • Service Identification in packets


    Mike St Johns, Geoff Huston
    Status: Review

    1.  (current) IETF Call for Input
  • Transport Controls for VOIP
    Sally Floyd, James Kempf
    Status: Drafting

    1.  (current) Document the use of transport control and congestion detection and avoidance for VOIP applications
    2.  (next) Sally – drafting
    3.  (next) ekr to provide input to smooth the generalization from VoIP to other similar types of realtime constrained transmissions.
  • IANA Definition

    Geoff Huston
    Status: Editing

    1.  (current) revise per IAB comments
    2.  (next) new draft
  • ISOC Trustee Appointment Process

    Leslie Daigle
    IAB review
    Status: IAB review

    1.  (current) IAB comments by June 20
    2.  (next) IETF Call for Input
  • IAB Research Agenda
    Sally Floyd, Vern Paxson, Ran Atkinson, Mike St Johns, John Crowcroft
    Status: Editing

    1.  (current) Document the need for funding for further research for the Internet, including documenting important topics for research.
    2.  (next) The document under development covers the need for research in general and identifies specific areas of research.
    3.  (next) Sally – feedback appreciate – there are as yet unwritten sections and assistance will be coopted
    4.  (next) Bernard – wireless research is underfunded – will send mail
    5.  (next) Sally – there is a commented out section referencing Rob on DNS
    6.  (next) Patrik to write section on issues around address scoping and related routing and application interactions
  • IAB Overview

    Status: IAB review – proposed updates requested

    1.  (current) active
  • IAB Considerations on Discovery Mechanisms and IPv6
    Bernard Aboba, James Kempf
    Status: drafting

    1.  (current) Redraft as a descriptive framework plus individual proposed contributions as desired
    2.  (next) James to work with the doc to try to separate out the descriptive framework from specific proposals. Specific proposals may be forwarded individually as contributions
  • IAB Research Agenda – Operational Areas
    Geoff Huston, Rob Austein, James Kempf
    Status: drafting

    1.  (current) Document the need for funding for further research for the Internet, including documenting important topics for research relating to operational activities
    2.  (next) Document focusing on operational concerns.

Attachment A ARIN Request for Address Allocation

ARIN recently received a request for address space based on an ID. Our response is below. By this message ARIN is consulting with the other RIRs and with the IETF as described in Option 2 of our response.



Text of Message

We have looked into your inquiry regarding the special case allocation of a /32 to be reserved for Teredo clients. Current ARIN policy precludes making allocations based on Internet-Drafts. In the case that this Internet Draft results in an RFC with an IANA consideration, the /32 prefix for Teredo clients could be made through coordination between the IANA and ARIN. Otherwise, a policy would need to exist in the ARIN region that allows the allocation of IPv6 address space for the purposes described in your inquiry.

We must consider your argument, however, that your organization will be releasing a service to customers that will rely on an implementation similar to what is described in the Internet Draft you have cited. We do have a concern, however, that if we make an allocation to Microsoft with the understanding that this /32 will be used for one of their service offerings to customers, that organizations other than Microsoft will also utilize this /32 for Teredo client implementations. Making this allocation could then be viewed as the Regional Internet Registries subverting the processes of the IETF.

We see ARIN’s options in regards to your inquiry as follows:

  1. Take no action until the processes of the IETF produce an RFC with IANA considerations.

  2. Discuss the challenges of this situation with the IETF and the other RIRs to determine if there are alternatives we have not discovered.

  3. Look into possible policy changes in the ARIN region that would allow IPv6 allocations of this type.

We are going to move forward with option #2 at this time. Please let us know if you would like to pursue option #3 in addition to option #2.

These minutes were prepared by Geoff Huston; comments should be sent to An online copy of these and other minutes is available at:

The IAB Web page is at