Minutes
IAB Teleconference
19 September 2007
1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
1.1 Agenda
- Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
- Liaison Reports
- Last Call Response on draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana
- Derivative Rights in IRTF Documents
- Adopting draft-aboba-ip-config as an IAB Document
- Enterprise Workshop
- Whither IPv6?
- AOB
It was agreed that the liaison reports would be moved to the beginning of the agenda in order to afford external liaisons the option of leaving the call early, if necessary.
1.2 Attendance
PRESENT
Joe Abley (IAB Executive Director)
Loa Andersson
Leslie Daigle
Elwyn Davies
Kevin Fall
Aaron Falk (IRTF liaison)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Barry Leiba
David Thaler
Mark Townsley (IESG Liaison)
Lixia Zhang
APOLOGIES
Kurtis Lindqvist
Danny McPherson
David Oran
Eric Rescorla
Lynn StAmour (ISOC Liaison)
1.3 Approval of Minutes
Minutes had not been circulated with sufficient time for approval in this call. It was noted that in future it would be beneficial to have minutes circulated 48 hours before the call to give more time for review.
1.4 Administrivia
Joe noted that he had made some test calls using ISOC’s Marratech server. The basic functionality required for conference calls appears to be there, although there are some scaling concerns if all participants decide to send video as well as audio.
Joe to schedule some times for some wider testing with other IAB members on the list.
2. Liaison Reports
2.1 IESG Report
Since the last report on Aug 15, 2007, the IESG held two formal telechats, one on Aug 23 and the other Sept 6. In total, 28 internet drafts were brought to the two telechats for review and action by the IESG. In addition to document review:
– The Kerberos (krb-wg) recharter was approved
– The IPv6 Maintenance (6man) WG Creation was approved for IETF review, pending edits.
– The DNS Extensions (dnsext) was approved, pending edits based on the IETF Review.
The IESG discussed an issue raised with respect to an Informational page for Ethertypes in IETF protocols. The IESG noted no concerns with the proposed direction as currently documented in draft-eastlake-ethernet-iana-considerations-01.txt
The IESG received a request from XMPP Standards Foundation to expedite draft-ietf-mmusic-ice. It is possible that a number of organizations are waiting on ICE, and discussion is ongoing as to whether to approve the request.
The IESG approved Kurt Zeilinga as the designated expert for RFC 4520.
RFC 4722 was published without an IESG Note that should have been included. The IESG formally requested that the RFC Editor publish a new RFC with the missing IESG Note to obsolete RFC 4722. The IESG agreed to the following three points regarding the IANA port:
1. Do not allow registrations where service name (in the keyword field of the registry or in the “short Name” of the web applications) conflicts with the name for an existing port assignment for a different protocol.
2. Do not allow registrations where service name (in the keyword field of the registry or in the “short Name” of the web applications) conflicts with the name for an existing port assignment for a different protocol. If later a port is requested for the entry, it can be added using the normal process for port allocation.
3. When a port is allocated for one transport, don’t reuse that same port number for a different protocol that uses a different transport. This policy will likely change at some point in time but right now it is a safe policy until a more refined policy is developed.
It was noted by the IETF Chair that there are 52 mail lists (out of 251 mail lists hosted at ietf.org) with more than 100 messages in their moderation queue. Only one of these mail lists makes use of TDMA. Consequently, we need to (1) get more people to help with moderation, (2) delete mail lists that are no longer being used, and/or, (3) put TDMA on more lists.
The IESG is considering asking the secretary to change the policy for internet draft submittal so that a non-00 individual draft that is moved to a WG draft be submitted at the deadline for non-00 drafts instead of having to make the earlier 00 draft cutoff deadline before an IETF meeting. The justification for this is simply that they are not new drafts but instead updates of an old draft with a new name. The impact of this change on the Internet Draft Submission Tool (IDST) must of course be taken into account.
2.2 IRTF Report
The RFC Editor has requested guidance from the IRTF on whether the IETF or independent submission derivative rights boilerplate should be used on IRTF RFCs. The IRSG reached a consensus that the independent submission policy: “4b. Preparation of derivative works from an RFC that was an RFC Editor contribution is allowed. [BCP 78 Section 4.2a(C)] Credit and citations must be given.” (from http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html#derivs) should be used. This policy is different from the IETF document policy in that it does not restrict derivative works to be only IETF documents. This policy is pending IAB approval.
Working on attracting researchers from the peer-to-peer community to be chairs and update the P2PRG charter.
2.3 RFC Editor Report
1. We have hired a new editor: Megan Fernelius. She will be a full-time employee starting 1 October 2007.
2. The Errata Process Proposal has been submitted as an Internet Draft.
The ID is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-00.txt
Discussion has been directed to:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
3. The following sections are no longer part of the RFC boilerplate:
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.
4. In August, we reported the following:
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).
However, we have since received notice that Spencer Dawkins is unable to partake in the EDU team activities because of other commitments. The RFC Editor will work with the appropriate individual for this tutorial.
Note that the RFC Editor tutorial has not been eliminated, but is now part of the EDU team’s session rotation.
2.4 ISOC Report
No Liaison Report from ISOC was received.
3. Last Call Response on draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana
Russ noted that since he is the receipient of last-call comments for this draft, he had recused himself from all discussion.
Olaf noted that his draft response had been circulated by e-mail, and that a couple of editorial suggestions had been received. There was unanimous support (apart from from Russ, who had recused himself from the discussion, per above) for the latest draft to be sent.
4. Derivative Rights in IRTF Documents
Aaron summarised an e-mail that he had sent on this subject to the IAB list. The RFC Editor has asked for clarification on the boilerplate to be used at the beginning of IRTF RFCs. The choices are to allow derivative works which are published by the IETF, or to allow all derivative works irrespective of where those documents are published.
Aaron reported that the IRTF’s recommendation is to allow any derivative works, which is consistent with general research goals of allowing work to have as wide an impact as possible.
The ultimate decision on which text to use lies with the IAB. It was agreed unanimously to follow the IRSG’s recommendation.
5. Adopting draft-aboba-ip-config as an IAB Document
Dave Thaler gave a brief summary of the document, which is concerned with providing guidance to protocol designers who need to exchange parameters over the network.
It was noted that as an IAB document, this would be aimed at Informational. The alternative would be for this to be an Internet Area document, as which it might be a candidate for BCP. However, it seems likely that it has a scope which is wider than the Internet Area.
Dave noted that the document was presented (by invitation) at the Prague DHC working group, where it enjoyed constructive discussion.
Leslie and Elwyn expressed the opinion that this would make a good IAB document.
It was decided to defer the decision until the next business meeting, to give others additional opportunities to review it.
6. Enterprise Workshop
There was considerable discussion about whether forward momentum towards an enterprise-focused IAB workshop had been achieved.
It was agreed that there was value in gathering information from and assessing the relative priorities of enterprises which could be used to shape future architectural work by the IAB.
There was no consensus that it made sense at this time to work on a workshop as the vehicle for that information gathering. There was support for identifying other ways in which information could be gathered, however.
7. Whither IPv6?
Lixia summarised a message she had circulated earlier by e-mail, relating to the current state of IPv6 deployment, internet growth, IPv4 address depletion, and existing transition mechanisms. An informal conference call had been held between various IAB members in which these various issues were discussed in some depth.
Mark Townsley expressed the opinion that the role of the IETF ought to be to provide appropriate tools to users, regardless of the direction the market takes with respect to the challenges described by Lixia. Mark also noted that he expected to meet with Jari in the near future in order to discuss the possibility of chartering work relating to IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, and that direction from the IAB would be most welcome.
Olaf noted that the deprecation of NAT-PT included advice that replacement mechanisms should be developed which did not suffer from NAT-PT’s deficiencies. There was support from the rest of the IAB for sending advice to the IESG about proceeding with such work.
Olaf suggested that this general topic ought to function as an umbrella for a diversity of future work. He also noted that this umbrella ought to accommodate presentations at future technical plenaries, with the goal of providing leadership and encouraging work in this area.
Lixia proposed that documentation was required which would describe the short- and long-term impacts of IPv4/NAT and IPv6. Mark agreed that such documentation, presented in such a way that it was open-minded, technical work and not IPv6 marketing material would be beneficial to the community. Mark also agreed that a variety of approaches under the single umbrella was a sensible way forward. There was general agreement on these points.
Dave Thaler volunteered to work with Elwyn on an e-mail to the IESG following up on the advice in the NAT-PT deprecation document regarding the development of alternative transition mechanisms.
Lixia volunteered to create a wiki topic to act as a framework within which material relevant to this general topic can be added. There was support for this work amongst the rest of the IAB.
It was suggested that if there was an outreach component to the work being discussed, it would make sense to involve ISOC.
8. AOB
Loa and Mark noted that the technical statement regarding T-MPLS that was circulated at the ITU meeting in Stuttgart was well-received, and that the result seems likely to be well-aligned with IETF goals. A report from Stuart Bryant, IETF liaison to the ITU, will be forthcoming.
Olaf noted that the IAB needs to appoint someone to the ICANN NomCom, and encouraged others to suggest suitable candidates.
Olaf noted that Dean Willis has resigned as liaison for OMR, and that the IAB needs to work on finding a replacement.
Russ noted that there were still some people who had not responded to the message regarding the proposed BOF coordination call on October 25, and encouraged those people to do so.
These minutes were prepared by Joe Abley and Dow Street. Any comments should be sent to execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/