19 December 2007
1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
- Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
- Liaison Reports
- Topics for IETF 71 Plenary Talk
- ITU-T SG13 Liaison Issues
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)
Joe Abley (IAB Executive Director)
1.3 Approval of Minutes
No minutes for the business meetings of 21 November 2007 and 4 December 2007 were yet available. [A final version of the amended minutes of 7 November as approved is pending].
2. Liaison Reports
2.1 IRTF Report
The following report was received from the IRTF Chair:
Summarizing status given at the IETF-70 plenary:
Three research groups met at IETF-70: HIPRG, MOBOPTS, RRG
To establish the IRTF RFC stream, draft-irtf-rfcs-01 is being edited (removing unecessary process information). This document will require IAB approval, per RFC4844.
Another IRTF RFC has been published since IETF-69, RFC5050 ŇBundle Protocol SpecificationÓ; another ~10 drafts are in progress towards publication.
Discussing P2P research group with potential chair, expect to hear more in January.
Reviewed the RRG with the IAB, generally positive feedback with a few suggestions.
Received several suggestions for New Work:
– RG follow-up for the IAB workshop on unwanted traffic mitigations. (status: email in development; received suggestion to run it by Some researchers active in the area before wide dissemination)
– Interest in RG on network virtualization (status: proponent is off talking to researchers and hopefully vendors working in this area)
– Interest in RG on a QoS policy framework (status: forwarded feedback from IAB, IESG, IRSG asking for more clarity of problem)
– Suggestion (from Sally Floyd) in TSV to create an RG on cross-layer communication
Aaron reported that he hoped to have the new version of the IRTF RFC stream document available early in the new year and that it might be available for approval at the next IAB business meeting.
Action: Review new version of IRTF RFC Stream document as available [All]
2.2. RFC Editor Report
The following liaison report was received from the RFC Editor:
– The RFC Editor will no longer delay the publication of documents in accordance with Russ’ announcement regarding the 60 day publication hold.
– We are working on attaining a signed certificate from a CA (as suggested by an IESG member and requested by Ray) for www.rfc-editor.org.
– We participated in the “Lifecycle of a Document” tutorial during IETF 70. There were about 50 attendees.
– ISI will be closed from 24 December 2007 – 2 January 2008. The RFC Editor will be on holiday during this time, but we will be checking email.
Dave Thaler inquired if there was a plan for the RFC Editor web site to become IPv6 capable. Sandy reported that an inquiry had recently been made to determine what would be needed. Elwyn felt that making the site available over IPv6 was desirable, but Eric felt that it was not a top priority, and that costs needed to be considered.
It was noted that the one outstanding RFC errata item for review (re RFC 4948, received 2007-0915) was approved by the absence of any comments before the deadline, per Olaf’s review request email.
Danny reported that he had not progressed his outstanding action item relating to discussion of the potential need for errata to be subjected to discussion on the community before approval (e.g., a last call procedure for substantive changes to standards). He expected to have an email out for discussion before the next meeting and discussion could be scheduled then.
Action: Document issues around community approval of errata [Danny]
2.3. IESG Report
The following report was received from the IESG Liaison:
Since the last report on November 21, 2007, the IESG held one formal telechat on November 29, with 16 documents under review. There were [no] new WGs or WG recharters approved. The IETF had a general meeting in Vancouver the week of Dec 2. This liaison report does not include specific activities of the IESG during the IETF meeting.
Active recent management-type discussions on the IESG list have included scaling of the RFC Errata approval system, inclusion of XML source with Internet Draft submissions, and whether or not to have a scheduled “IPv4 outage” at the next IETF meeting.
There was some discussion of IPv4 Outage ‘proposal’. The proposal as it stands affects the IESG plenary which is in the purview of the IESG to determine; Eric was concerned that the effects would detract from the normal business of the plenary and might adversely affect network availability outside those attending the plenary as well as requiring extra effort from network operations. Mark noted that there had been a mixed reaction from the community. Russ reported that the discussion on the list had resulted in various vendors and IANA responding and who had ‘taken up the challenge’, but that further discussion had been deferred in the IESG.
2.4. ISOC Report
The following report was received from the ISOC Liaison:
[There is] very little new to report as the IETF meeting was so recent…but
– The ISOC Board approved ISOC’s budget and within that supported the IASA budget for 2008 (with a high level view of 2009 – 2010). The full Board book (containing the Budget(s) and supporting programs) can be found at: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/docs/dec2007/boardbook.pdf, it provides insight into ISOC’s priorities over the coming years.
ISOC is adding resources and building out our programs in support of the IETF’s activities and in more technical areas generally with a focus on policy, education and spurring deployment. The appointments of Lucy Lynch and Leslie Daigle were one element of this and in December we added a very senior policy person to our staff from the Government of Canada (Bill Graham), see: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/staff/graham.shtml.
Bill has been involved in the ITU for several years (representing the Canadian government); has been involved in all the Governance discussions (WSIS, WGIG, IGF, etc) and shares the technical community’s view re the “Internet model” (and our corresponding positions on private sector vs. governmental responsibilities). He will be a great asset as we increase our engagement with national and international bodies and this is expected to be very helpful as we work with the IETF and others to progress critical issues affecting the Internet.
For those that are interested the full Board meeting agenda and supporting materials can be found at: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/agenda-dec-07.shtml (materials are linked under the agenda items and they are also consolidated in the Board book above).
Olaf and Lynn reminded the IAB that ISOC had recently issued a call for new Board of Trustee nominations and that the IAB would have to start the process for appointing the IAB nominated member.
Action: Initiate ISOC BoT appointment process [Olaf]
3. Topics for IETF 71 Plenary Talk
A proposal for a plenary talk related to unwanted traffic and the underground economy had been put forward. Subsequent investigation had shown that the group originating the material would not be able to field the IAB’s preferred speaker. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that, in the light of new information and possible difficulties in sharing the slides presented, this proposal should not be followed up.
The IAB considered that keeping the issue of unwanted traffic fresh in the community’s mind was still important and a number of alternative speakers were discussed.
In the light of the relatively tight timescale before IETF 71, Olaf asked a sub-group consisting of Loa, Lixia, Elwyn, Kevin, Danny, Aaron, and Barry to discuss the matter and bring proposals as soon as possible.
Action: Bring forward IETF 71 plenary talk suggestions asap [Loa, Lixia, Elwyn, Kevin, Danny, Aaron, and Barry]
Russ suggested that it would be helpful for the IAB to have a plan in place for topics (say) three plenaries in advance. Leslie noted that the IAB also wished to ensure that matters of immediate interest were presented which could militate against longer term planning.
4. ITU-T SG13 Liaison Issues
Loa reported that the T-MPLS Design Team was endeavoring to meet what appeared to be an increasingly difficult timescale in order to bring IETF concerns formally to the attention of the meeting of SG13 scheduled for Seoul in January 2008. It is likely that, in the absence of liaison being sent by 9 January, the ITU documents that contain matters that may be inconsistent with IETF standards will be approved in Seoul.
The difficulties in meeting the timescale concern:
– Agreeing on the text of the liaison within the team ready to bring to the IAB and the community early in January;
– Not having time to achieve an appropriate concensus in the IETF;
– Ensuring that the concerns will actually be considered by SG13 especially if a formal concensus is not achieved; and
– Demonstrating that the IETF is maintaining good faith in the relationship set up after IETF 69.
The main aims remain (1) to prevent publication of the problematic documents and (2) to bring the process of developing the work involved back into the IETF standards process.
After extensive discussion of ways and means to achieve the desired aims without extensive damage to the new relationahip, it was agreed that, subject to further discussion with Stewart and the design team,
– the design team should work towards a list of (major) issues that could be sent to SG13 by January 9,
– it was not possible or necessary to achieve a complete list of issues provided that they were sufficient to support the IETF’s and ISOC’s position regarding non-publication of the documents, and
– Stewart Bryant would be formally registered as an ISOC representative for the meeting, as the IETF’s path for participation in ITU meetings. In the event that the relevant documents are approved for publication in spite of the issues raised by the IETF liaison, as a representative of a voting member, he would be empowered to require the documents contain a disclaimer indicating a disagreement with the technical content as is allowed by ITU-T procedures.
– Continue to work to produce of list of issues [Loa, T-MPLS design team]
– Mandate Stewart Bryant as ISOC representative as agreed [ISOC]
There was no other business
These minutes were prepared by Joe Abley, Olaf Kolkman, and Dow Street. Any comments should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/