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)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
The IETF 74 technical plenary was added as an agenda item.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
No meeting minutes were reviewed. There was a short discussion about
cleaning up and posting the notes from the IETF technical plenary to
the proceedings. Dow and Olaf took the action.
2. ECMA Liaison
(deferred due to Andy’s schedule conflict)
3. ITU liaisons: ID/LOC and T-MPLS
The IAB has been responding to recent developments within the ITU-T
SG15, where a small contingent has been attempting to start MPLS-TP
related work that would violate the current agreement between the
ITU-T and IETF. Part of the challenge is rooted in the different
procedures used in the ITU-T vs. IETF when building consensus and
making decisions to approve documents. Loa reported that the liaison
correspondence has been sent, and the IAB is now awaiting a response.
It was noted that there are individuals within the ITU-T who have
been quite helpful in resolving the situation.
Olaf also observed how this situation has required quick coordination
among IAB members, and that the IAB is not particularly accustomed
to operating in a fast-response mode. The group set up a phone list
to allow for quicker coordination when necessary, but will attempt to
keep such situations to a minimum (i.e. not set a precedent that the
IAB operates in this mode in the general case).
4. SIDR Discussion / IAB Transparency
Geoff Huston recently sent correspondence to the IAB regarding an
email from Danny McPherson. The technical topic of interest was
securing inter-domain routing, but Geoff’s email principally
concerned IAB methods of collecting information from outside parties,
and the related issue of IAB transparency. The situation had been
discussed on the IAB mailing list, and Olaf had drafted a response to
Geoff. The board reviewed this response during the meeting.
Note: The response was sent shortly after the meeting, and is now
posted to the IAB website:
The group entered a lengthy discussion of NAT66, guided by a summary
of the issues that Dave Thaler had previously emailed. Dave noted
that NAT66 is a topic of active discussion on several different IETF
mailing lists, and that there have been multiple requests for IAB
guidance in this area. The NAT66 discussion is partly related to the
previous request to the IAB for guidance on UNSAF / RFC 3424.
The board reviewed potential and perceived benefits of NAT in the
context of IPv6. RFC 4864 enumerates the benefits of NAT in v4, and
what one can do in v6 to get those same benefits without introducing
NATs. However, there are a number of individuals in the IETF / IESG
who have argued that the alternatives are unwieldy or commercially
unattractive compared to IPv6 NATs. Of particular focus during the
IAB meeting were the use of NATs to avoid renumbering, N:1 vs 1:1
NATs, and the relation of IPv6 NATs to map-and-encap and other RRG
proposals. There was consensus that the IAB should take an active
role in the NAT66 debate, likely through the publication of an IAB
document on the topic. It is also possible that the IAB UNSAF
guidance will need to be updated depending on the direction NAT66
There was a general agreement that there are enough pro-NAT
commercial interests that guidance simply stating “don’t use NATs for
IPv6” is unlikely to prevent their deployment. To a degree, the job
of the IAB is likely to be helping to limit the damage that NATs pose
to the overall architecture.
6. IAOC Candidate Selection Update
Olaf gave an update on the IAB’s selection of an IAOC candidate.
(Gonzalo had been coordinating the call for candidates, but had a
schedule conflict this call). Three candidates have been identified,
and each has received a questionnaire that the IAB will use in making
a selection. NOMCOM will also select an IAOC member, and it was
noted that there is a possibility the IAB and NOMCOM could select the
same individual. Since the selection processes of the two groups
are wholly independent, the IAB decided to simply deal with such
a situation if and when it were to occur, likely by identifying a
first and second IAB choice. Internal IAB discussion has indicated
that all three individuals are seen as strong candidates.
7. Action Items [5 min]
(deferred due to time constraints)
8. Document Status [5 min]
(deferred due to time constraints)
9. San Francisco Plenary
Andy and Loa have drafted a fairly complete proposal for the plenary
topic, “MPLS after 12 years”, which would trace the IETF experience
with MPLS development and deployment. The plan is to do a panel
discussion with individuals who have been involved from the start,
and try to draw out multiple perspectives. The IAB discussed a few
different directions the topic could take, and ideas to ensure that
the talk is relevant to a wide IETF audience. A “Case Study” format
was considered that would allow for discussion of other aspects of
the topic that are more general than just MPLS, such as technology
development, deployment, and coordination with other organizations.
It was also agreed that the plenary should not include significant
coverage of “IETF interaction with other standards organizations”
without involving those parties in the talk, perhaps as panel
members. The group decided that this area of the topic could
warrant a plenary talk of its own, and will consider it for a
At this time the IAB entered an Executive Session. Liaisons dropped
from the call.
10. NOMCOM Update
Dave Oran gave a very brief update on NOMCOM status.
11. JFC Morfin Appeal
Russ Housley recused.
Olaf introduced the JFC Appeal, and Barry volunteered to lead the work
on the IAB’s response. All members were asked to review the appeal
materials for the next meeting.