Minutes IAB Teleconference 2008-10-15
1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, approval of minutes, administrivia
1.1. Agenda
1.2. Attendance
PRESENT
Gonzalo Camarillo
Stuart Cheshire
Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Gregory Lebovitz
Barry Leiba
Kurtis Lindqvist
Danny McPherson
Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Dave Thaler
APOLOGIES
Loa Anderson (IAB Liaison to the IESG)
Andy Malis
David Oran
Lixia Zhang
1.3. Administrivia
Two agenda items were added to all other business (AOB): Headers
and Boilerplates and the RFC Editor model. It was also decided to
tentatively schedule a techchat on 11/26, the week following
IETF 73. The techchat topic will be determined at a later date.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
The IAB approved final minutes for the 2008-05-07 meeting.
2. Liaison Reports
2.1. ISOC Liaison
Lynn gave a brief update on the recent Russian Association for
Networks and Services (RANS) conference held 23-25 September in
Moscow. Olaf participated in the meeting on behalf of ISOC, and
had emailed a few notes to the IAB during the conference week. It
was agreed that there were no immediate IAB actions resulting from
the conference, with the possible exception that an upcoming issue
of the RANS journal could have an article on IETF happenings. Olaf
suggested using the IETF journal as an initial resource, and will
coordinate with RANS staff if any additional information is
needed.
On a separate topic, Russ commented that there was new ITU work
brewing in the area of locator-identifier split. This topic was
discussed later in the agenda.
(no ISOC Liaison written report submitted)
2.2. RFC Editor Liaison
Sandy gave a short summary of the RFC Editor Liaison written
report, highlighting recent progress in converting RFCs to PDF
format, and noting a recent discussion of how to cite “works in
progress”. It was agreed that the latter issue was beyond the
scope of what the RFC Editor should attempt to decide autonomously;
a discussion of the topic is taking place on the rfc-interest
mailing list.
(begin RFC Editor written report)
RFC Editor Report to the IAB 1) The RFC Online Project We have scanned 64 of the 66 RFCs not online. We are updating our database as necessary and are working to make these documents available from our repository. We expect to complete the RFC Online project before IETF 73 (i.e., minimally, each document will have a .pdf file). For example, please see: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc109.pdf We are working on getting 50 of the 66 files into ASCII format; 16 have already been placed online. 2) We have received a request to consider allowing I-D strings in references, and listing them as expired internet-drafts because listing them as "Works in Progress" is misleading. Current RFC Editor policy states (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc- style-manual-08.txt): Non-normative references to Internet Drafts are allowed, but they must take the following restricted form: the author(s), the title, the phrase "Work in Progress", and the date; for example: [doe13] Doe, J., "The Deployment of IPv6", Work in Progress, May 2013. We understand that the documents have already expired, and are therefore no longer works in progress, but the format for citing internet-drafts is as appears above. We believe this is a content issue that needs to be discussed in a larger forum. We would appreciate your comments. Note that Julian Reschke has initiated this discussion by sending a message to the rfc-interest list. Please see: http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2008- October/000888.html
(end RFC Editor written report)
2.3. IESG Liaison
Lars summarized his written report, noting that the IESG had
rejected an appeal from JFC Morfin, and was considering an appeal
from Fred Templin. Russ added that JFC had asked for the creation
of new IETF-hosted mailing list, and that such a list might be
possible depending on the conditions of the request (e.g.,
identification of a suitable list moderator).
There was a short discussion of the IESG decision process,
especially when documents have a complicated set of DISCUSSes. The
IESG is working to clarify the process and improve decision
transparency, and will be discussing the issue further during the
Minneapolis meeting. Lars also noted the recent IAB query from
Magnus related to RFC 3424, and whether the guidance
(begin IESG Liaison written report)
IESG Liaison Report to the IAB
2008-10-15
The IESG has rejected an appeal from JFC Morfin. The title of this
appeal is "Appeal to the IESG Concerning the Way At Large Internet
Lead Users Are Not Permitted to Adequately Contribute to the IETF
Deliverables". The appeal response has been posted.
The IESG has received an appeal related to its decision to issue a
temporary "do not publish" for draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp
(independent submission targeted at Informational). The IESG will
discuss this decision during one of the next telechats in order to
consider community feedback it received after its decision was
announced.
The IESG has closed the IP over Resilient Packet Rings working
group (iporpr) in the Internet Area.
The IESG has issued the text of a proposed "IESG Statement on the
Usage of Assignable Codepoints in Specification Examples" to the
community for feedback.
The IESG has been discussing modifications to its balloting
procedures that are intended to streamline the processing of
documents that have received DISCUSSes. A second goal is to
simplify and clarify those stages of the current balloting
procedures that are most unclear to the wider community, in order
to increase transparency.
The IESG has been discussing how specifications can normatively
refer to protocols for which no specification (closed or open) is
available - specifically: rsync.
Spencer Dawkins has resigned from the IESG Scribes team.
Jari Arkko has detected that some working group charters on the
IETF web site are still severely outdated. This corruption occurred
and was brought to the attention of the secretariat during the
transition from NSS to AMS and was assumed to have been since been
fixed.
Magnus Westerlund sent a request to the IAB regarding RFC3424
("UNSAF") and whether it is still a requirement to provide answers
to its considerations.
The IESG received a query from the community asking it to clarify
its statement on SPAM control.
(end IESG Liaison written report)
2.4. IRTF Chair
Aaron reported that two new chairs had been identified for the P2P
research group. They are researchers who have been following the
ALTO activity, and have already identified research areas related
to that work. The new chairs are in the process of revising the
charter, and should be finished by the IETF meeting.
(begin IRTF Chair written report)
- draft-irtf-rfcs-03 submitted to the RFC Editor - draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-06 being reviewed by IESG according to IRTF process - Meeting at IETF-73: MobOpts, HIPRG, DTNRG, ICCRG, RRG - Identified 2 chairs for P2PRG who are working on a revised charter that will (among other things) help inform ALTO wg - Moved www.irtf.org to IETF servers; changed IETF-hosted lists to have irtf.org domains instead of ietf.org (the previous situation was an artifact of having the web site served from a different site than the mailman servers). - Continued (low level) interest in a 'network virtualization' RG; expecting a problem statement draft before IETF-73; probably another bar BoF An addendum: Four recent RFCs published from IRTF RGs: - RFCs 5325, 5326, 5327 -- LTP specs -- published by DTNRG - RFC5345 -- Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Traffic Measurements and Trace Exchange Formats -- published by NMRG
(end IRTF Chair written report)
3. Timeline for IAOC Selection
Gonzalo has been organizing this item for the IAB, and during the
call he summarized the schedule for selecting a candidate. There
was a short discussion of the timeline: call for nominations,
announcement of nominees and call for feedback, and IAB selection.
Gonzalo suggested using the NOMCOM questionnaire as a template for
the questions that would be asked of IAOC candidates, and he asked
board members for feedback and/or suggested modifications.
The board will start the process in early November and make a
selection in January 2009.
4. Feedback on DNSSEC Deployment
The U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) recently requested feedback
on several approaches to signing the DNS root. There was consensus
among members that the IAB should send a response, and the group
spent some discussing what that response should include. Two key
points that were identified were:
– The IAB supports DNSSEC for the root, and sooner is better.
– The method selected for deploying DNSSEC should not modify the
trust that users currently place in the Domain Name System.
Olaf will write a draft response and send it to the IAB for review.
5. IAB Schedule / Planning for IETF 73
The IAB reviewed their agenda for the upcoming IETF, and decided to
schedule a discussion of the P2P topic on Sunday afternoon. Gonzalo
will revise the P2P draft over the next week or two and prepare to
lead that discussion. Dave Thaler will present the “Evolution of
the IP Model” as the technical plenary topic. His presentation
will be followed by a panel-style Q&A session with all members of
the IAB.
As part of the shepherding role, all board members were also asked
to talk to their respective liaisons prior to the IETF. This will
help to identify any open issues that could benefit from face-to-
face discussion in Minneapolis.
6. Outline of Response to UN Enhanced Cooperation
Dow walked through a draft outline for the IAB’s response to the
UN on the topic of “Enhanced Cooperation”. Several board members
had previously submitted comments and suggestions. Dow will draft
the the text of the letter and send it to the IAB for review. The
letter will provide an overview of the IETF role, structure, and
processes as related to open participation and development of the
Internet.
7. Locator-Identifier Split ITU Liaison / Flow-Aware Forwarding
Olaf gave some background on an effort to initiate IP-related
locator-identifier split work in the ITU. The group interested in
this work had previously brought their idea to the IETF, but found
the IETF hard to work within, suggesting this might be an attempt
to end-around IETF processes. Since the work would impact IP, the
routing and transport ADs have drafted a liaison statement to the
ITU-T. Loa will draft an email that provides further context and
references the liaison statement. After review by the IAB, this
mail message will be sent from the IAB to the ITU leadership to
ensure they are aware of the situation.
The discussion then turned to a second ITU-T-related topic. There
has been recent work in SG-11 in the area of flow state aware
forwarding. Lars provided some background on this work, which has
had some prior discussion within the IETF and could impact IETF
protocols. At a minimum, the proposal requires a number of code
points, so would eventually require IESG approval. Since the
proposal is being driven primarily by the Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA), coordination on the issue is
essentially a three-party problem (IETF, TIA, ITU-T). The IAB
agreed to query Scott Bradner (ITU-T Liaison) for more background,
and to set up a small-group meeting in Minneapolis to determine
next steps.
8. Anycast / IAB-IANA Documents
Danny recently updated the anycast document and had sent it out for
review. Some comments have been received, and Danny requested that
the rest of the IAB review the latest draft so as to determine
whether to make this an IAB document.
Danny also just updated the IAB-IANA draft after feedback from
Leslie and Kurtis. The document is in pretty good shape, and
should be useful for some upcoming meetings with the US DoC and
IANA. Danny will send the updated document to the IAB for review.
9. Approval of draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932-04 bis
Olaf described that the IAB Statement documented in the 3932bis
draft has the following statement:
In its capacity as the body that approves the general policy
followed by the RFC Editor (see RFC 2850 [I4]), the IAB has
reviewed this proposal and supports it as an operational change
that is in line with the respective roles of the IESG, IRTF, and
RFC Editor.
He then asked the board for explicit verification that there was
agreement on inclusion of this statement in 3932bis. Dave Thaler
is the editor of RFC 4846, a related document, and expressed his
support. There were no other objections from the board.
10. AOB
10.1. Headers & Boilerplates Draft
Olaf asked for final IAB comments on the Headers & Boilerplates
draft, which he will update once more before beginning a community
call for comments. Since this document is related to RFC 3932bis,
the intent is to begin the community call for comments in the next
few days, allowing the documents to be moved forward together.
10.2. RFC Editor Model
The IAB had approved the RFC editor model at their last meeting,
and Olaf reviewed the current status:
– The plan is to document the things that are learned during the
implementation.
– The draft has been posted to the RFC-interest mailing list.
– There was some feedback from John Klensin that the document is
not ready, and Olaf will try and address those concerns in an
update to the draft.
– If there are significant changes based on those comments, Olaf
will bring the document back to the IAB prior to public comment.
Otherwise, the update will be directly distributed to multiple
lists for further public comment.
There were no objections to this plan. There was also some
expectation that the forthcoming RFC Editor Model RFC would be
updated in 2 years after learning from this contract cycle.