6 February 2008
1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
- Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
- T-MPLS and JWT
- Response to the ICANN JPA mid-term review
- Topic for the Technical Plenary
- Action Items and Document Review (deferred)
- IESG Approval (Executive Session)
Joe Abley (IAB Executive Director)
Aaron Falk (IRTF liaison)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Lynn St Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Mark Townsley (IESG Liaison)
Stewart Bryant – IETF Liaison to the ITU-T for MPLS
David Ward – IETF chair for the JWT
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
1.3 Approval of Minutes
Joe is working on a complete summary of minutes to be completed, distributed, and approved. The summary will be sent out later today.
1.4 Agenda Bash
The action items and document status topics were deferred to next meeting due to lack of time.
2. T-MPLS and JWT
T-MPLS is on the IAB agenda in order to follow up on recent developments, e.g., the formation of the JWT, the ITU-T SG13 meeting in Seoul, and the upcoming ITU-T SG15 meeting in Geneva. Stewart Bryant (the IETF liaison to the ITU-T for MPLS) and David Ward (the AD that has been most active in the interactions on T-MPLS between IETF and ITU-T), were invited to this IAB meeting to provide a status report.
Stewart Bryant reported on the SG13 meeting in Seoul.
ITU-T SG13 met in Seoul a few weeks ago. We have sent “nightly updates” to the IAB and IESG on how the meeting developed. During the first week we saw a head-on conflict when vendor comments (i.e., Cisco and BT) on G.8113 were reviewed. G.8113 is the T-MPLS OAM requirements document. The following week a number of people from the IESG and IAB joined the meeting. The first part of the week was spent on the additional comments that the IETF (through ISOC) sent in. As a result of the review large parts of the original text were removed.
The outcome of the discussion was that we ended up with an extremely generic, non-protocol-specific set of requirements for OAM for MPLS transport applications. The document is of generic use because it does highlight some additional OAM features and requirements that we don’t address in work chartered by the IETF. We should seriously consider adding those features and requirements.
G.8113 was then changed in status from Recommendation to a supplement; in IETF terminology this would be analog to moving a document from ‘Standards Track’ to ‘Informational’. A supplement is a non-normative and non-referencable document. The document is actually very easily changed and therefore can be considered unstable. One effect of making the document a supplement was to remove it from the AAP, implying that it cannot reappear as a recommendation without returning to the start of the process.
The T-MPLS solutions document G.8114 was taken out of AAP and has, in effect, been discontinued. If the document is ever revived it will need to go through the full approval process.
During the discussion in Seoul it was also detected that the T-MPLS architecture needs to be updated. One point is that, under some specific cases, PHP was actually used by T-MPLS, while the current T-MPLS architecture document says that it is never used. The ITU-T acknowledged that MPLS and T-MPLS networks are not necessarily disjoint networks, and that needs to be reflected in the architecture. There will be some secondary effects to these changes in the T-MPLS architecture.
[end of Stewart’s report]
David Ward discussed the future of cooperation between ITU-T and IETF in the T-MPLS area.
A draft has been sent out with terms of reference for the Joint Working Team (JWT) between the IETF and the ITU-T. Briefly, this means that we have found a way forward that minimizes the formality and allows for swift progress.
Three groups will be set up; an IETF Design Team; an ITU-T Ad Hoc group (comparable with an IETF DT); and a team on neutral ground, the JWT. Each group will have their own mailing lists. The task of the JWT will be to advise the SG15 on whether to chose Option 1 (cooperation) and Option 2 (separate solutions).
The IETF design team will be sponsored by the Routing Area ADs. This will make it possible to close the IAB Technical Ad Hoc Group. All the newly formed teams will meet according to their own schedules; a meeting for the ITU-T Ad Hoc team is planned for Geneva and will be co-chaired by Malcolm Betts and David Ward.
The ad-hoc group on the ITU side will have an open membership, since that’s what required by the ITU, while the JWT and the IETF DT will be set up by appointment.
The agreement between ITU-T and IETF was that all the current documents on T-MPLS still progressing in ITU-T will be halted until the Joint Working Team has come to a decision on option 1 or option 2. The JWT has been set up solely to give ITU-T SG15 management advice on which option to choose.
The JWT has been set up to make swift progress and deliver its advice by April 2008.
[end of David’s report]
The IAB discussed the reports above and concluded that the IAB supports the strategy and actions as reported. The IAB also decided to close down the IAB Technical Ad Hoc Committee. An email to that effect will be sent out by Loa with thanks to all the participants.
At this time David Ward and Stewart Bryant left the phone conference.
3. Response to the ICANN JPA Mid-Term Review
Olaf reported on the situation.
ICANN was set up based on a white paper by the US government. Later, the white paper was replaced by a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) that has been amended a couple of times; recently the MoA was replaced by a Joint Project Agreement (JPA). The last amendment is valid for two years and it is now time for mid-term review.
We have received a note from David Conrad inviting us to participate in the mid-term review. This note has served as trigger for us to look into the responsibilities we have in our relationship to ICANN. There is a long IAB/IETF history with respect to the ICANN operations. Coordination of DNS, IP address allocation, and technical parameters are treated as one subject, but the coordination with registries on technical parameters is very seldom of interest in ?wider? discussions.
Our position, which was repeated several times, is that we are in control of those technical parameter registries, that it is a function implemented on our behalf, and that we have a controlling part at least with respect to the protocol parameters which are specified in IETF protocols. Olaf has drafted a response to that midterm review which essentially reiterates those points. The question is: ‘How do we want to proceed with this?’
At the IAOC retreat Olaf took the action to look into the possible ways forward that let us remain in control of the technical parameters.
IAB discussed the IAB, IETF, IAOC, ICANN and IANA relationship. The IETF has a strong relationship with ICANN on the IANA function; there is a MoU and SLA in place. There are certain aspects and levels of the ICANN – IETF relationship there with which the IAB needs to be involved. The critical issue is that we need to be able to move the function to maintain the protocol parameter registries if we want to. Currently we need to reaffirm our position with respect to the DoC, and also state that, from an overall perspective, we think ICANN is performing well, but also that we need our stakeholder positions acknowledged.
The IAB members will read the recommended text provided by Olaf once more, will and supply feedback so the response may be sent to the DoC before the deadline on February 15, 2008.
4. Topic for IETF 71 Technical Plenary
With Barry in the driving seat, we are currently working on two possible themes for the Technical Plenary in Philadelphia: IPTV and low-power and lossy networks. The dominating opinion is that IPTV would be the more interesting topic.
Barry, Elwyn and Dave O will follow up with the proposed speakers and make sure that we have a solid proposal within two weeks.
5. Action Items and Document Status
This agenda item was deferred as decided during the agenda bashing (item 1.4). Olaf urged everyone to update the wiki, and after doing so, send a notification email to the IAB mailing list.
6. Any Other Business (AOB)
Olaf informed the group that the IAOC had a retreat last week, and that two topics of interest to the IAB were discussed:
– the IANA regularization (see above item 3)
– the RFC-Editor RFP (what we will need to do in that context)
The discussion of the RFC-Editor will take place at the IAB business meeting in two weeks; this was basically a heads up. Olaf will send outlines of the different ways forward in order to prepare for that discussion. A substantial part of the next business meeting will be allocated to this topic.
Elwyn will send mail with on OECD to the IAB mailing list shortly. There are a few documents that IAB members might like to review and provide comments on.
There will be an EU meeting on standardization (ICT standardization in a European context) next week in Brussels. Olaf will be speaking there. He has made it very clear that he’ll be representing his own opinions only, and can?t say anything on behalf IAB or the IETF.
7. Executive Session
The IAB went into an executive session to discuss the pending approval of the IESG slate from NomCom.
These minutes were prepared by Loa Andersson and Dow Street. Any comments should be sent to email@example.com. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/