Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2007-09-05

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2007»IAB Minutes 2007-09-05

IAB Teleconference

5 September 2007

1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia

1.1 Agenda

  1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
  2. draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00
  3. Draft of Draft Joint Agreement for T-MPLS
  4. IAB to RIPE NCC regarding DNSSEC in E164.ARPA
  5. OECD Involvement
  6. draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana
  7. Techchat Schedule
  8. Enterprise Workshop
  9. Action Items Check
  10. Document Status
  11. All Other Business (AOB)

1.2 Attendance

Joe Abley (IAB Executive Director)
Loa Andersson
Leslie Daigle
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Kurtis Lindqvist
Danny McPherson
Dave Oran
Eric Rescorla
Lynn St Amour (ISOC Liaison)
David Thaler
Mark Townsley (IESG Liaison)
Lixia Zhang

Elwyn Davies
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Kevin Fall
Barry Leiba

1.3 Approval of Minutes

Minutes of IAB teleconferences on 2007-07-11, 2007-07-24, 2007-07-26 and 2007-08-15 were approved in principle, but it was agreed to wait until Friday for any additional suggestions, modifications, etc. before considering them approved.

2. draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00

Community input is sought on draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00. There was discussion about the best place for that input to be gathered. It was noted that similar discussions sometimes take place on the wgchairs mailing list, but that the community of interest for this document is wider than just the subscribers of that list. It was also noted that subscribers to the independent list would be worth engaging.

It was concluded that the right place for the discussion was the rfc-interest list, and that notes should be sent to the wgchairs and independent mailing lists to draw peoples attention to it. The rfc-interest list has public archives. Danny McPherson volunteered to monitor the discussion.

3. Draft of Draft Joint Agreement for T-MPLS

Loa Andersson summarised a discussion which took place by e-mail regarding the text of a joint technical recommendation statement to be sent to the ITU regarding T-MPLS. Loa reported that the text follows what was discussed in Chicago, and changes relate mainly to which signatures will be included on the message, and the respective capacities of the signatories. The draft being circulated is from a variety of individuals with MPLS or PWE3 expertise.

Loa reported that the intention was to have the statement available for participants at the interim ITU meeting being held in Stuttgart the following week. Loa noted that the statement would not be included in the meeting agenda, but would be used to drive discussion. Mark Townsley suggested that if there was some level of consensus achieved in Stuttgart, it would be good if that could be recorded in the minutes. Loa agreed, and noted that it should be possible for the statement to be included in the meeting report to the study group chair.

There was no immediate action required by the IAB.

4. IAB to RIPE NCC regarding DNSSEC in E164.ARPA

A draft reply to the RIPE NCC in response to the RIPE NCC’s notification regarding their intention to sign the E164.ARPA zone was discussed. The draft was circulated by e-mail prior to the telechat.

Eric Rescorla raised the question of whether it was appropriate for the IAB to comment on the key management practices to be used by the RIPE NCC in signing the zone. Several IAB members expressed reluctance in general to the IAB commenting on the operational details of the RIPE NCC’s infrastructure.

Olaf Kolkman and Eric Rescorla agreed to work together to add text to the draft response to reflect the IAB’s high-level expectations about key management in the signing of E164.ARPA.

5. OECD Involvement

It was noted that Constance Bommelaer had sent mail to the IAB regarding participation in an OECD survey. The potential involvement of the IAB was characterised as providing technical input to a policy discussion.

Lynn St Amour noted that ISOC is supportive of the OECD’s work, and that the OECD is an extremely credible organisation. ISOC looks to the IAB and the IETF as partners to provide technical input into policy discussions.

It was noted that the deadline for responses to the particular questionnaire under discussion was fast approaching. It was also noted that the questions were rather general and open-ended. There was doubt as to whether the IAB could draft useful, high-quality answers, given both the timeframe and the non-specificity of the questions.

Lynn suggested that it might be possible for ISOC to facilitate more directed discussions between representatives of the IAB and the OECD. Eric Rescorla and Olaf Kolkman volunteered to participate in such a discussion, if ISOC was able to arrange it. Elwyn Davies had expressed interest earlier by e-mail.

There was some discussion about the possibility of the IAB drafting a more general statement on topics similar to those in the OECD’s questionnaire.

Following these discussions there was no clear direction identified of the most effective involvement of the IAB in OECD policy efforts. Further discussion will be necessary.

6. draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana

It was noted that draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana is in last call. A companion document, draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv, is in the final stages of being considered by the IESG for publication as an informational document. The -dlv-iana document contains directions to the IANA which were separated out of the companion document.

It was noted that the best way to meet the goals that DLV is designed to facilitate would be to expedite the signing of the root zone. DLV is a workaround which aims to provide similar functionality in the absence of a signed root. There was some concern that an IANA- operated DLV registry might slow or otherwise interfere with ongoing efforts to sign the root zone.

It was also noted that there could be potentially many DLV registries. Having the IANA operate a DLV registry might act as a disincentive for other organisations to run competing registries.

It was suggested that the opinions of the IANA, and in particular the part of IANA that is responsible for root zone maintenance and liaison with TLD managers, would be pertinent in considering this draft.

Olaf proposed that he refine a draft response which had already been circulated by e-mail such that it could be sent as a response to the documents IETF last-call from the IAB. This approach was approved unanimously.

7. Techchat Schedule

Potential topics for future techchats were discussed. Danny McPherson, Lixia Zhang and Eric Rescorla had proposed topics which it was agreed would be good to schedule.

Having identified suitable topics, scheduling was deferred to the list.

8. Enterprise Workshop

Lixia Zhang, Danny McPherson and Dave Thaler gave some brief summaries of what they had found out to date from their enterprise contacts regarding a possible enterprise-focussed IAB workshop.

From those brief summaries it appears that:

  • enterprises have concerns and priorities with regard to the Internet which are noticeably different from those of operators.
  • travel to a centralised workshop seems like it might be a challenge.

Lixia, Danny and Dave to give a more detailed summary by e-mail to be discussed on the following IAB business call.

9. Action Items Check

9.1. Followup to Emergency Services SDO Coordination Meeting

Feedback has been received from Andrew, but not from Allison. Olaf to follow up.

9.2. Router Scaling Issues

While Dave Ward’s presentation contained some confidential information, the parts which were pertinent to router scaling also appeared in various public presentations. In view of that, it was considered that there was no further need to pursue a unencumbered version of the presentation for consideration by the IAB. This action item will be dropped.

9.3. ITU/NGN

It was agreed that while individuals should be encouraged to keep an eye out for potential candidates, the issue as a whole would be deferred until IETF 70 in Vancouver.

9.4. Unwanted Traffic RG

It was agreed that while individuals should be encouraged to keep an eye out for a volunteer to lead an IRTF initiative relating to unwanted traffic, the issue as a whole would be deferred until IETF 70 in Vancouver.

9.5. Anycast

Joe, Kurtis and Danny have had some initial discussions, but have not yet produced any text.

9.6 Infrastructure ENUM

Olaf reported that the document is still with ADs, and that there is currently no IAB action.

9.7. Consider Policy on ICANN NomCom

Olaf reported that the status of this action item was currently unclear. Olaf to follow up.10. Document Status

10.1. Design Choices when Expanding DNS

Olaf reported that he is still waiting to hear from Rob Austein.

10.2. DNS Synthesis Concerns

Olaf reported no progress.

10.3. Survey of Authentication Mechanisms

Eric reported no progress. Some movement is expected by mid-October.

11. AOB

11.1. IPv6 Transition

Lixia noted that the discussion of possible IAB work in relation to developing additional IPv6 transition mechanisms should be included on the agenda of the next business meeting.

11.2. NomCom

Danny asked those who had not already indicated their intention to re-up to the NomCom to do so.

11.3. Marratech

It was noted that there was some interest in exploring Marratech as a tool to facilitate meetings. ISOC have a licensed Maratech server. Joe to investigate.

These minutes were prepared by Joe Abley and Dow Street. Any comments should be sent to An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: