15 August 2007
- Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
- Liaison Reports
- Cablelabs Liaison Selection
- Liaison Selection for ITU-NGN
- Future of RAM Mailing List
Joe Abley (IAB Executive Director)
Wesley M. Eddy (ICCRG co-chair)
Aaron Falk (IRTF Liaison)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Lynn St Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Mark Townsley (IESG Liaison)
1.3 Approval of Minutes
Minutes of IAB telecconferences on 2007-06-06 and 2007-07-11 were approved.
1.4 Desired Level of Detail in Minutes
It was noted that the level of detail shown in some of the meeting minutes was insufficient. It was noted that, in general, the minutes ought to contain sufficient detail that a reader who was not present at the meeting ought to be able to find out what was discussed, how decisions were reached and what the decisions were. It was noted that a long delay between meeting and the production of minutes was not helpful.
Joe Abley undertook to produce minutes in a more timely fashion in order to make review of minutes easier, and to allow pertinent detail which might be missing to be better identified.
2.1 ISOC Liaison Report
The following report was provided by e-mail by Lynn St Amour, who was not present on the call.
I – Follow-up on IAB Workshop on Unwanted Traffic:
During IETF 69, ISOC and IAB representatives (Danny McPherson, Elwynd Davies, Loa Andersson, Lynn St.Amour, Lucy Lynch, Karen Rose, Mark Thalhimer, Mirjam Kuehne, Kevin Cramer, (note: Lixia Zhang was also a member of the committee)) met to identify areas of further activity/collaboration between the two organizations. Various opportunities were reviewed re how ISOC can help make the outcomes of the IAB workshop more widely known, raise awareness about the threats of unwanted traffic on the net, educate various audiences and what vehicles were most appropriate, etc.
Additional experts have been drafted into the committee and various aids/mechanisms are being used to help the joint planning/coordination efforts. ISOC committed to drawing up a plan and timetable for these activities, and this will be reviewed by the joint Committee; and, comments by all IAB members are also welcome.
II – IPv4 Exhaustion – IPv6 Deployment/Transition Activities
As you are all well aware, IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 transition is getting a lot of attention. ISOC felt it important to provide some underlying information and help eliminate some of the myths around IPv6. Together with some members of the IETF community (and reviews with others such as Operators, RIR’s, etc.), ISOC drafted a FAQ on IPv6 Transition issues. It also addresses some of the popular myths about ‘additional features’ in IPv6.
This FAQ is only a portion of our planned activities in this space and we are actively reaching out to other communities to tailor our activities and messages to make them more “accessible” to various audiences. A plan of our activities is being drawn up for further review.
III – ISOC Board meeting
ISOC’s next Board of Trustees meeting will be held immediately following IETF 70 in Vancouver, Canada. It starts on Saturday AM (approx. 8:00 AM and ends at 12N on Sunday). ISOC’s Board meetings are open and attendance is welcome.
It was noted that some clarification was required in relation to item I in the liaison report: it was not clear to the IAB whether ISOC was seeking assistance from the IAB as an organisation, or from informed individuals who happened also to serve on the IAB. Joe Abley to seek clarification from Lynn St Amour.
2.2 IRTF Report
The following report was supplied by Aaron Falk.
- Seven RGs met at IETF-69 (a recent record)
- IRSG reviews received for the following five drafts. All are require revisions before progressing.
- IESG review has been requested for draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-spec-10.txt
2.3 IESG Report
The following report was supplied by Mark Townsley.
This report does not include detailed proceedings of the general IETF meeting held in Chicago the week of July 22.
On July 25, the IESG sent a note to the NomCom committee regarding the role of liaisons to the NomCom. The main point was to clarify that when interacting with the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the views of the IESG rather than his or her own personal opinion.
Also on July 25, one liaison statement on behalf of the IESG and IAB were sent to the ITU-T, and one liaison statement from the PWE3 and MPLS WGs were sent to ITU-T’s SG13 and SG15 with respect to concerns over the ITU-T’s “T-MPLS” work.
The IESG cancelled it’s Aug 9 formal telechat as there were a large number of IESG members on vacation (so many that no Standards Track documents could pass if those not present did not record positions in advance of the meeting). The next meeting will be August 23.
2.4 RFC Editor Report
We intend to submit the Errata Process Proposal as an internet draft within the next couple of weeks.
The following text will be removed from future RFCs once the RFC Editor Contract has been amended:
From the Status of this Memo:Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
From the Full Copyright Statement:Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
We are working with the EDU team to create “A Document Lifecycle” tutorial for IETF 70, which will explain the production of a document from internet-draft to RFC. This tutorial will be taught by Spencer Dawkins (for the internet-drafts process) and Alice Hagens (for the RFC process), and will include Michelle Cotton (to define the IANA Considerations section of a document).
Following an e-mail poll, it was agreed that there was clear consensus to appoint Ralph Droms to be the IETF liaison to Cablelabs.
Dave Oran to confirm the appointment with Ralph, thank the other candidates for offering their time, and send an announcement. Joe Abley to arrange for the appointment to be reflected on the IETF web page.
There was discussion about the benefit to the IETF of appointing such a liaison, and also of possible candidates to fill such a liaison role if it was decided that it was useful.
It was agreed that further consultation with members of the IETF community who are involved in ITU-NGN would take place. Further discussion deferred until that consultation is complete; Leslie Daigle to consult.
It was noted that the routing and addressing related discussions are currently going on both the RAM and RRG mailing lists, and that the RRG co-chairs had confirmed that they were happy to host all such discussions on the RRG list.
The IAB has heard that the existence of two lists with similar goals has caused some otherwise productive discussions to fracture, and hence the question of whether it was prudent to retain both lists was raised.
It was suggested that the RAM list moderators attempt to steer discussion to the RRG list. The residual utility of the RAM list will be observed some time after that effort has started, in order to judge whether it useful to retain.