1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, approval of minutes, administrivia
Loa Anderson (IAB Liaison to the IESG)
Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Dow will be setting up several new IAB-internal mailing lists to facilitate discussion of the IESG slate. There was also a short discussion about setting up individual accounts for accessing the IAB wiki. Dow will make the server configuration changes that are needed to enable individual access.
IAB business meetings were scheduled for 7 and 14 January, so as to ensure time for closure on the IAOC and IESG selections.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
The IAB approved final minutes from the 2008-06-04 meeting. There was also a discussion about the “minutes” from the 2008-06-12 BOF call with the IESG. In the past, BOF calls and other similar meetings have not have formal public minutes posted on the IAB site. However, the IAB had recently discussed that it might be useful to note that the meeting took place, even if a substantive summary is not drafted. Dow will work offline with Olaf, Barry, and Dave Thaler to determine how best to document this type of meeting.
1.5. Notes from the IETF 73 Technical Plenary
Dow reported that the notes taken during the IETF 73 Technical Plenary had been posted to the IAB wiki and were ready for review. The notes will be uploaded to the IETF proceedings page on Friday.
2. Liaison Reports
2.1. IESG Liaison
Lars summarized his written report, highlighting three items: the Dean Anderson appeal, copyright rules for code included in RFCs, and work split between the IETF and IRTF. Lars and others in the IESG have been coordinating with the IETF attorney on the copyright rules for code in RFCs. It was noted that the guidance that had been received from Jorge probably needs to be more widely published, and might require changes to the boilerplate. It was agreed that the trust should take up this question.
The question of IETF / IRTF work split was triggered by a document on blacklists that came through the IRTF stream. However, the IESG discussion that followed focused more on the general question of how work is split between the IETF and IRTF. Aaron clarified the ways that documents are created and published through the IRTF stream. After further consideration of the question the group decided to continue the discussion offline.
(begin IESG liaison written report)
IESG Liaison Report to the IAB
2008-12-13: The IESG has rejected an appeal from Dean Anderson. The title of this appeal is “Appeal of DNSOP WG Decision of September 13, 2008”. The text of this appeal can be found at the following URL:
Both Ron Bonica and Russ Housley recused from considering this appeal.
2008-12-10: The IESG has asked the the Trustees and the authors of RFC5378 to clarify which copyright note is expected for source code in IDs. Jorge Contreras responded, and the first IDs to follow his guidelines are the draft-ietf-nfsv4-* IDs currently under IESG Evaluation.
2008-12-4: Jari Arkko contacted the IAB on behalf of the IESG with a suggested change to the RFC3932bis boilerplate.
2008-12-XX: The IESG is continuing to debate the exact contents of a proposed IESG statement on formal language usage in IDs, specifically, whether all text in a formal language must always be well-formed and if a pointer to the definition of the formal language used must always be given.
2008-12-XX: The IESG is holding three formal telechats during December, and is expecting the IAB to buy them dinner to offset the pain. (Just checking is anyone is actually reading this…)
2008-11-26: The IESG has experimented with using the ISOC Marratech system for telechats, and found it did not work in a wide variety of circumstances.
(end IESG liaison written report)
2.2. ISOC Liaison
Lynn was not available to participate in this call.
2.3. RFC Editor Liaison
Sandy summarized the copyright issue, and asked the IAB for guidance on how to handle drafts (a) for which there is not explicit author consent on the revised copyright but (b) are otherwise ready for publication. After some debate, most IAB members felt that the best course of action in such cases was to *not publish* until the situation is satisfactorily resolved. This was the guidance given to the RFC Editor. In cases where explicit consent from authors *was* possible, it was agreed that the document should be published with the new boilerplate (without waiting for a final resolution on the open questions).
A second question concerned whether the RFC Editor was, or should be, responsible for contacting document authors in order to seek explicit consent. This question was directed to the RFC Editor mailing list for consideration, but there was some IAB concern over burdening the RFC Editor staff with this task.
(begin RFC Editor written report)
RFC Editor Report to the IAB
– In accordance with the IETF Trust, the RFC Editor started placing the new copyright text into RFCs with the publication of RFC 5378; that is, RFCs published after 10 November 2008 have been published with the new copyright notice. A few authors have recently expressed that it is not appropriate for the copyright to be changed after the document has been approved for publication (with the earlier copyright agreement). We share their concern. We are discussing this issue with Ray, Russ, Olaf, Jorge, and Cullen to determine the best course of action for documents that were approved under the previous copyright agreement.
We are considering requesting that documents approved for publication be submitted as I-Ds with the new copyright text, which would serve as author consent for RFC publication with the new copyright notice. We expect to suspend RFC publication until this issue has been resolved.
– We are working on the copyright notice to be applied to the Independent stream.
– USC/ISI will be closed from 25 December 2008 – 2 January 2009.
(end RFC Editor written report)
2.4. IRTF Chair
Aaron had previously distributed a written report; there were no questions from the IAB.
(begin IRTF Chair written report)
– Danny McPherson has joined the IRSG as an at-large member.
– The IRSG composition is now online at http://www.irtf.org/chair.
– The IRSG discussed and agreed to adopt the IETF IPR license for IRTF Stream RFCs. Appropriate changes to draft-irtf-rfcs will be added in Auth48.
– A new charter and new chairs (Volker Hilt and Stefano Previdi) have been approved for the Peer-to-Peer Research Group (P2PRG).
– The Host Identity Payload RG (HIPRG) is discussing a geolocation draft and has invited participation from the GEOPRIV wg.
– The Internet Congestion Control RG (ICCRG) is considering alternative approaches to fairness beyond TCP fairness
– The Transport Modeling RG (TMRG) has added an additional chair (Lachlan Andrew).
– The Routing Research Group (RRG) plans to deliver a report by March deadline, with preliminary findings, and continue work on recommendations for a more scalable routing architecture.
(end IRTF Chair written report)
3. ISOC BoT Selection
Olaf gave a brief introduction to the ISOC BoT selection process. The process will start under the outgoing IAB, and will conclude under the new IAB with selection of a new BoT member. The IAB plans to kick-off the process in January.
The board then began a long technical discussion of NAT66. Dave Thaler walked through a set of slides outlining various perceived benefits of NATs, including avoiding re-numbering, hiding topology, preventing host counting, and reducing state in the routing system. RFC 4863 describes how some of these goals can be achieved without NATs, but does not give a good alternative for avoiding re- numbering. As a result, avoiding re-numbering was seen as a key driver for some proponents of NAT66. The group discussed 1:1 and 1:n approaches, as well as the relationship between NATs and access control mechanisms, and some similarities between NATs and tunnels. Lixia noted that one way to solve the re-numbering problem is by giving everyone provider independent (PI) address space. The group then talked about the use of UNSAF mechanisms, which the IAB had previously commented on in RFC 3424.
More work on this topic is needed; the discussion will be carried over to the next IAB meeting.
Note: At this point liaisons dropped from the call and the IAB entered an Executive Session.
5. JFC Appeal
There has been some internal IAB email on the JFC appeal. It was decided to defer group discussion until the next meeting.
6. IAOC Selection
Gonzalo reported that there had been significant feedback on the IOAC candidates, both from IAB members and the larger community. The group scheduled a final discussion and vote for 7 Jan 2009.
7. IESG Confirmation
Since the IESG slate had not yet been received from the NOMCOM, the IAB decided to defer the main discussion until 7 Jan. If the slate arrives within the next several days, the board will attempt to hold an ad-hoc interim meeting to jump start the discussion. A doodle poll will be set up to determine everyone’s availability (given the upcoming holidays).