Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2009-03-04

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2009»IAB Minutes 2009-03-04

IAB Teleconference


1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, approval of minutes, administrivia

1.1. Agenda

1.2. Attendance

  Loa Anderson (IAB Liaison to the IESG)
  Marcelo Bagnulo (incoming IAB)
  Gonzalo Camarillo
  Stuart Cheshire
  Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
  Vijay Gill (incoming IAB)
  Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
  John Klensin (incoming IAB)
  Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
  Gregory Lebovitz
  Barry Leiba
  Kurtis Lindqvist
  Andy Malis
  Danny McPherson
  David Oran
  Jon Peterson (incoming IAB)
  Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
  Dave Thaler
  Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
  Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
  Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
  Lixia Zhang

1.3. Administrivia

The IAB decided on Ashburn, VA as the retreat location. Verizon will provide a conference room; Andy will send hotel and logistics information to the group. There was also a short discussion of the new IAB phone conference schedule, which will be finalized in the coming week based on input from incoming members.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

The board approved final minutes for the following meetings:

2008-08-13 Minutes
2008-08-20 Minutes
2008-10-01 Minutes
2008-10-08 Minutes

Dow will post the minutes to the IAB web site.

2. IETF 74 Planning

2.1. IAB Schedule at IETF 74

The IAB spent about 15 minutes discussing their schedule for the upcoming IETF. At the IESG joint meeting on Sunday afternoon the group will discuss the idea of IETF leadership blogs. Barry had suggested the idea as a means to improve communication with the larger community, and he volunteered to begin a mail thread on the topic. Several agenda items were planned for the regular IAB meeting on Sunday: IAB thoughts and perspectives from incoming and outgoing members, appointment of IAB Chair and Executive Director, and a talk from Tom Petch comparing IP address exhaustion and financial markets.

Monday and Friday mornings will be the customary week-ahead and week-in-review meetings with the IESG. On Tuesday the IAB will discuss the ISOC BOT appointment process and current candidates, as well as the procedure for selecting the Independent Submission Editor (and possibly the RFC Series Editor) as defined in the RFC Editor Model. On Thursday morning the board will meet with one of the IRTF Research Groups. Aaron is in the process of confirming which RG will participate.

There was a short discussion on the selection of the IAB chair and the IAB liaison to the IESG. Loa is the current liaison to the IESG, and IETF 74 will be his last meeting on the IAB. Dave Oran had previously indicated a willingness to take over as liaison; no other volunteers were forthcoming. The question will be taken to the IAB list, and barring new candidates, the board planned for a pro-forma appointment of Dave during the Sunday meeting. In the meantime, Dave will begin coordinating with Loa and Russ to ensure a smooth transition.

For IAB chair, Olaf had previously expressed a willingness to serve another term, contingent on the support of the rest of the board. No other members have yet volunteered as alternate candidates. To help ensure an unconstrained discussion, a mailing list was set up that does not have Olaf as a list member. Any other potential candidates were requested to make their intentions known soon, so as to facilitate chair confirmation at IETF.

2.2. Technical Plenary

Andy gave an update on the planning for the MPLS technical plenary. He has received an early draft of Tom Beckly’s slides, and is waiting to hear back from George and Kireeti. Andy will forward Tom’s slides the the IAB for review, and Gregory will talk to Kireeti about his slides. Andy and Loa will also coordinate with the plenary speakers to get all the draft slides by next week.

2.3. Liaison Coordination

Olaf began this agenda item by describing for new IAB members the role of the Liaison shepherd. Andy noted that the liaison to the Open Grid Forum is stepping down, and that he had asked the current liaison for recommendations for new candidates. The discussion turned to MPLS-TP, an area where there has been a lot of liaison activity in past months. Loa noted that the JWT was closing down, and Andy will be available to take over any continuing liaison efforts in this area. Loa also said he would remain available after his tenure to assist as necessary. Olaf then suggested a meeting with all the ITU-T liaisons at some point during the IETF meeting.

Returning to the earlier discussion, Aaron reported that the HIP RG and RRG were candidates for the Thursday IAB meeting. The group consensus was that either of these groups would be good. Aaron will check with the RG chairs and send a note to the IAB.

2.4. BOF Coverage

Dow is in the process of updating the BOF sign-up page based on the revised agenda. He noted that there are a larger than usual number of BOFs planned for IETF 74. Olaf reminded volunteers to sign-up and to send BOF summaries to the rest of the IAB.

3. RFCs, tools, and IPR

3.1 RFC5378, tools, and IAB/IASA roles.

This item was a bit of a “post-mortem” consideration of the issues that arose during the recent RFC license change. Olaf noted that for certain actions involving multiple parties, in this case the IAOC, Trust, IAB, and tools team, it is not always clear who is to give the authoritative answer. This can occur even when the parties work together closely as a committee, as was the case with the license change.

John suggested that the IAB might not have a major responsibility here, except to note the gaps. He further suggested that it might be time to review the IASA structure and assess how well it has worked. John did have some thoughts on how the IAB handles its current role, which led into the next agenda item.

3.2. Implementation of Headers and Boilerplates

John raised three concerns related to H&B and the RFC Editor model: the substance of the current H&B document, the function of AUTH48, and the role of the IAB in day-to-day procedural decisions. John stated that there is nothing in the current H&B draft that he can’t live with, though if he had been involved earlier he would have suggested some changes. His larger concern was with the plan to revise the RFC Editor model “along the way” based on the experience gained during the contracting process. Olaf described this plan as rooted in the lack of running code for the new model, and though revision was not a foregone conclusion, the current plan sought to enable revision if deemed necessary. John emphasized that it would not be appropriate to make any significant changes to the draft after it entered AUTH 48. There was agreement on this point, and Olaf affirmed that any significant changes would require the draft to be withdrawn, posted for community review, and then re- submitted.

On the third concern, John explained how the current H&B draft could be interpreted as providing very explicit instructions to the RFC Editor, rather than high-level guidance. His perception of the H&B text was that it comes close to the IAB getting into “writing the style manual”, and he inquired about the IAB’s willingness to take on such a task over the long term. The question was seen as particularly relevant in the context of the RFC Editor model definition. Olaf responded that for the H&B draft the authors had tried to strike a balance between providing style instructions but also giving the RFC Editor as much latitude as possible. Except for those items with externally derived constraints (e.g. placement of copyright notice), the intent was for the Editor to make the necessary choices. John stated that this intent might not be clear to an external reader, and Danny asked if John could provide some clarifying text. The group planned for one more revision, with a quick turn-around review over the next week.

4. ISOC Recommendations on Enhanced Cooperation

Olaf informed the board that ISOC was coordinating a follow-up response to the United Nations on the topic of “Enhanced Cooperation” in public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The IAB agreed to support ISOC as needed in this effort.

5. Action Items

5.1 Anycast

Danny received some comments on the draft, and is waiting for additional input from Kurtis and a few individuals from the INT area. It was agreed that another revision would be useful, after which the group will decide whether to make this an IAB document or leave it as an individual draft.

5.2 Discussion on Infrastructure ENUM Doc

Olaf and Jon reported that the open DISCUSS on this draft is security related, and will need a review from the DNS directorate.

6. Document Status

6.1 On RFC Streams Headers and Boilerplates

See discussion above.

6.2 Principles of Internet Host Configuration

It was agreed to send this document to the RFC editor.

6.3 Design Choices When Expanding DNS

Dave Thaler is working with Patrik to finalize this document based on the previous input from the IAB. Per the group’s concurrence, after Patrik completes the edits, Olaf and Dave will conduct a final review and then submit it for publication.

6.4 DNS Synthesis Concerns

No change.

6.5 A survey of Authentication Mechanisms

No change. There was agreement that although this is not particularly urgent, it is still important and would be good to complete.

6.6 Evolution of the IP Model

No change. Updating the document based on feedback received from the community has been set at a lower priority due to
the NAT66 work.

6.7 IAB IANA Draft

No change. Danny took an action to figure out next steps for this document.

6.8 P2P Architectures

Gonzalo reported that he had received comments from several people and was incorporating them into the document. Overall, the draft has been favorably received thus far.

6.9 Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions

No change.

7. AOB

7.1. IP Config Draft

The IAB agreed to send the latest draft to the RFC Editor.

7.2. NAT66 Draft

Dave Thaler recently revised the internal NAT66 draft, and there was IAB consensus to send it to the I-D repository. The document, now titled “IAB Thoughts on IPv6 Translation”, discusses the concept of translation in more general terms, and is no longer focused solely on the specific NAT66 proposal.


The group had a brief high-level discussion of the ISOC BoT selection process. Since liaisons were on the call, no details about individual candidates were discussed. The board had been considering additional questions for the candidates. Olaf requested that any further questions be submitted for consolidation by Friday. The group made plans to discuss candidates and select a trustee during the IETF week.