1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, approval of minutes, administrivia
Loa Anderson (IAB Liaison to the IESG)
Marcelo Bagnulo (incoming IAB)
Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
John Klensin (incoming IAB)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Jon Peterson (incoming IAB)
Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Vijay Gill (incoming IAB)
The IAB decided on a new meeting schedule. Business meetings will be held 12:00-13:30 ET on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month. Techchats were moved to 12:00-14:00 on the 1st Wednesday of each month.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
No meeting minutes were reviewed during this call.
2. Liaison Reports
2.1. ISOC Liaison
Lynn gave a brief summary of her written report (see below), noting that ISOC had added a lot of staff over the past 6 months and that they were getting more organized in coordinating and reporting relevant activities. Dave Thaler asked about the Internet Pavilion. Lynn explained that ISOC and the IAB chair had done something similar in Tunisia. There was a short discussion of options for the upcoming meeting (i.e., nature of IAB participation), and Lynn will send an email to the IAB with additional information.
Danny asked about a possible naming collision between the ISOC IPv6 workshop and a Tony Hain’s talk “IPv6 Acceptance: The Stages of Grief.” Lynn acknowledged that ISOC is aware of Tony’s work and said that Leslie has been communicating with him on the matter. The ISOC IPv6 panel will take place in San Francisco during IETF week. Lynn noted that there was space available for interested IAB and IESG members, to which added that individuals should RSVP if planning to attend.
<begin ISOC Liaison written report>
ISOC Liaison Report
March 19, 2009
I. ISOC to host IPv6 Briefing Panel
ISOC will host a briefing panel focused on the real world experiences associated with deploying IPv6 during IETF 74. The panel on “the Seven Stages of IPv6” as it is titled, will examine the opportunities of IPv6 from the perspective of network citizens in the seven stages of dealing with massive change. The event objective is to raise the IETF’s profile, and inform media and the public on one very important component of its work. The panel will be moderated by Leslie Daigle, ISOC’s Chief Internet Technology Officer.
II. ISOC joins Liberty Alliance Management Board
As part of our Trust and Identity initiatives, ISOC has signed on to the Liberty Alliance Management Board for 2009. This membership will be converted to a Founding Member seat on the board of a proposed “NewOrg” (sometimes called IDTBD). This NewOrg is the result of a series of consultations with members of the identity technology community, many of whom saw value in a consortium organization that could interface between identity developers (as a whole) and the potential adopters and end-users of identity solutions. After looking at the various small foundations and at Identity Commons as well as the proposed IDTBD structure, IDTBD appears to the best chance of achieving some kind of stable, inclusive, neutral base for identity technologies to address a wider audience.
ISOC is very interested in supporting this new organization and we have joined LA with the express intention of rolling our membership to NewOrg/”IDTBD” as a founding member. We hope our participation will allow ISOC to help shape the new organization in ways that encourage new entrants, provide shelter for interesting work on small projects that need access to both an organizational structure and funding, and encourage interoperability and a unified voice on identity questions from those outside the current development sphere.
For additional details on plans for Trust and Identity in 2009 see: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/docs/mar2009/trust-identity.pdf
III. IAB and ISOC Joint meeting on Infrastructure Security
During IETF74, members of ISOC’s Standards & Technology department will be meeting with various members of the IAB (past & present) to follow up discussion about unwanted traffic and IETF work that is addressing key issues in infrastructure security. We are working on developing a more thorough version of this IETF Journal article http://www.isoc.org/tools/blogs/ietfjournal/?p=590 for a technical journal publication.
IV. ITU World Telecommunications Policy Forum
ISOC is preparing for ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, Lisbon, April 21-24. The ITU is holding the WTPF in April to discuss a broad range of issues concerning Internet governance and policy issues. Those include: convergence, Internet-related public policy issues, Next-generation networks (NGN), Emerging telecommunication policy and regulatory issues, and the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR’s). As a result ISOC has developed five fact sheets on issues that will be discussed at the Forum, as well as a briefing on the WTPF and suggestions of how ISOC members can reach their local governments to discuss Internet policy issues with them. The fact sheets are available at:
ISOC will have staff at the WTPF, and we have also been working with partners from the NRO and ICANN, who will also be in attendance to meet with delegates to provide specific Internet knowledge.
V. Internet Technical Community Collaboration with OECD/ OECD accepts the Internet Technical Community as a partner.
Since last June’s OECD Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy, ISOC has worked with the Chair of the OECD Information, Computer and Communication Policy Committee (ICCP), as well as with OECD staff and Public Voice (civil society) to finalize a document describing how we will work with the ICCP. This follows the invitation from the OECD Secretary General to find ways to collaborate on a permanent basis. The document was accepted at the March 12 ICCP meeting. IETF and IAB have been among the 17 organizations we have been keeping informed of developments and inviting to work with us. ISOC, ICANN and RIPE NCC participated in the March meeting, where ISOC helped to prepare an identity management primer, and moderated a session on virtual worlds as a policy making tool. Drafting/approval of a charter for the so- called Internet Technical Advisory Committee is now in preparation, and outreach to an even broader set of partners has begun. A website has been put up at www.internetac.org to coordinate the group.
VI. Internet Pavilion at the ITU Telecom World trade show and conference.
ISOC has decided to develop an Internet Pavilion at Telecom World, similar to the one in Hong Kong in 2005. ICANN and the NRO have agreed to partner with ISOC, and we have also reached out to the regional ccTLD organizations and W3C to join us in creating a display space tentatively under the theme “Managing the Internet Together.” We would be very pleased to have IETF and IAB also join us in the Pavilion, to show conference attendees the range of I* organizations working together. This would be particularly appropriate because many attendees will be people who participate in the ITU’s standards processes, and who should be better acquainted with the IETF and its role.
VII. March Board Meeting
The ISOC Board is holding its next Board meeting on March 28th (all day) and 29th (AM only) 2009, immediately after IETF 74 in San Francisco. ISOC Board meetings are open and participation is welcome. The agenda and supporting materials are posted at:
<end ISOC Liaison written report>
2.2. RFC Editor Liaison
Sandy introduced the RFC document categories in her written report (see below). There was a short discussion about whether BCPs originating from the IAB stream should be called out as a separate category. The group also discussed whether IRTF stream documents require RG consensus and/or IRTF consensus prior to publication. Aaron clarified that with or without RG consensus, all IRTF stream documents must have IRSG consensus. He will work with Sandy offline to verify that the Headers and Boilerplates draft correctly documents this process.
Olaf reported that the new license policy no longer requires the copyright notice to be on the first page, and that the RFC Editor has the flexibility to determine the best section ordering. Russ asked about the copyright issue for MIBs and XML code. Sandy said that there were some remaining questions here, and so they are holding drafts with the old two-sentence structure until a new statement is received from the IESG.
<begin IESG Liaison written report>
RFC Editor Report to the IAB
– It appears that the 6.c.iii paragraph was “the fix”, as we have already published 35 documents in March, while we published only 59 in November 2008 – February 2009.
– We will have the following RFC Editor office hours during
Monday – Wednesday
9:30 – 4:30
– We will present the RFC Editor tutorial session on Sunday at 3:00.
– We have put together “Status of This Memo” samples to get an idea of what the text looks like according to draft-iab-streams-headers- boilerplates-07.txt. We believe there are 19 possible states, although some will rarely be used. We would appreciate it if some of you could review the list below and the attached file and let us know if we have missed any of the cases created by the headers and boilerplate document. Note that the URL included in the attached file is for example purposes only; it remains TBD.
1. Standards Track – with IETF consensus
2. Best Current Practice – with IETF consensus
3. Experimental – with IETF consensus
4. Experimental – without IETF consensus
5. Historic – with IETF consensus
6. Historic – without IETF consensus
7. Informational – with IETF consensus
8. Informational – without IETF consensus
11. Experimental – with RG consensus*
12. Experimental – without RG consensus
13. Historic – with RG consensus*
14. Historic – without RG consensus
15. Informational – with RG consensus*
16. Informational – without RG consensus
*These entries need to be manually altered to include the specific Research Group name in the text.
<end IESG Liaison written report>
2.3. IESG Liaison
Lars reported that the ITU-T and others have had problems with the liaison tracker, and so have been sending email to the secretariat instead of using the online submission tool. This has caused delays in some cases. He noted some AD concerns with the SIPSO draft, but that if the WG gets consensus he could be overruled by the community. He gave a short report on rsync, which is not currently specified anywhere but could be useful to the SIDR work.
The Trust received a liaison statement on flow-aware forwarding, which will be discussed further next week. The discussion of late IPR disclosures has also continued, and Russ noted that the number of individuals not aware of the IPR rules is staggering in spite of the NOTE WELL. To assist with this, Scott Bradner and Jorge Contreras will be giving a review at the plenary. Gregory explained that the late disclosures from Juniper recently were due to a backlog in the legal department, not a deliberate attempt to disclose late. Lars stated that although the Juniper situation had partly triggered the discussion, most of the focus was on overall clarification of the rules for the community at large.
Danny asked if chairs had been selected for the LISP WG. Lars clarified that at the upcoming meeting there would be a LISP BOF, overlapping with community review of the proposed WG charter. BOF chairs have been identified, but chairs for the proposed WG have note yet been determined.
<begin IESG Liaison written report>
IESG Liaison Report to the IAB
2009-2-18: DIME and ECRIT held virtual interims (phone conferences)
2009-2-19: Some ADs and other SDOs encountered deficiencies in the liaison statement tracker tool.
2009-2-19: The IESG has been discussing whether to approve draft- stjohns-sipso and allocate a IPv6 hop-by-hop option for MLS. A WG last call is currently underway in 6MAN. (We discussed this draft during a joint meeting with the IAB at IETF-73 where I asked for IAB members to get involved, which hasn’t really happened.)
2009-2-XX: IDR, IPPM rechartered (NFSv4 pending, not yet anounnced)
2009-2-24: The IESG has been discussing a Standards Maturity Variance Regarding The rsync Protocol. (I don’t remember if the discussion has concluded – Russ/Loa/Olaf?)
2009-2-25: The IESG confirmed Marshall Eubanks as IAOC appointment.
2009-2-27: NomCom announced IESG appointments.
2009-2-27: The TSV area has received an LS from ITU-T SG 11 regarding Q.flowstatesig. This will be discussed over lunch on Thursday next week.
2009-3-XX: WGs closed: MAGMA, USEFOR, IPTEL (also SIGTRAN, not yet announced)
2009-3-XX: The IESG has been discussing the general issue of (very) late IPR disclosures, and specifically some recent examples. We’re considering an IESG statement to clarify the current rules and practices. The discussion hasn’t yet concluded.
<end IESG Liaison written report>
2.4. IRTF Chair
Aaron confirmed that the HIP RG chairs will be available to meet with the IAB on Thursday morning, and he will ask them about any background reading for the meeting. Aaron also stated that he had just checked the Headers and Boilerplates draft and it correctly reflects the IRTF stream (see item 2.2 above).
<begin IRTF Chair written report>
– Meeting at IETF-74: RRG, HIPRG, DTNRG, P2PRG
– HIP RG will meet with the IAB on Thursday breakfast
– 3 IRTF docs waiting in RFC Ed queue on H&B, 3932bis
– New work interest, and IETF chats planned, on:
– future PKI
– network virtualization
– Google M-Lab
– Meeting at IETF-74: RRG, HIPRG, DTNRG, P2PRG
– Sally Floyd has stepped down as TMRG chair
At IETF-73, the IRSG members present had chatted about rights in the IRTF document stream. There was strong agreement from those present that the most desirable path for IRTF docs was to maintain commonality with IETF docs, in particular avoiding different licenses that would complicate IRTF material from moving into the IETF at some later date. Subsequent discussion on the IRSG list supported this, and specifically addressed publishing IRTF docs with copyright belonging to the IETF Trust.
<end IRTF Chair written report>
3. IETF 74 Technical Plenary
Andy and Loa updated the group on preparations for the IETF 74 technical plenary, “MPLS – almost a teenager”. All panel members have submitted draft slides, and the IAB is in the process of providing comments to the authors. Panel members are George Swallow, Tom Bechly, and Kireeti Kompella, each of whom will give a short presentation on MPLS. Loa and/or Andy will introduce the topic and moderate the panel.
4. IETF 75 Technical Plenary (Network Neutrality)
The IAB has been considering a technical plenary on the topic of network neutrality. The purpose of this agenda item was get buy-in on the idea from incoming IAB members, and to determine next steps in planning such a plenary for IETF 75.
Barry began by summarizing the concept and possible goals of the plenary, noting that if the board has agreed to this topic then it is time to begin identifying speakers. Marcelo suggested Barbara van Schewick, a professor at the Stanford Law School with a back- ground in computer science. She has been working in the area of network neutrality and is planning to be at the IETF meeting in San Francisco. There was agreement that it would be good to talk to Barbara, even if she does not end up participating in the Stockholm plenary.
Olaf emphasized that the IAB should approach the topic in a policy- neutral manner, focusing on the technical aspects impacting IETF work. Marcelo will contact Barbara and Barry will send out a topic summary. The rest of the board was asked to add potential speakers to the list on the IAB wiki.
5. RFC Editor Model
At this point in the meeting the board entered a long discussion about implementation of the RFC Editor model. Olaf outlined the upcoming milestones to get to an RFP. The RFI has already gone out, and a few responses have been received back. Olaf stressed that it is critical for the IAB to have ongoing frank and honest discussions leading up to the RFP, so as to ensure the entire board has confidence in the approach. He further stated that as much of this discussion as possible should take place on the RFC interest mailing list.
Olaf and Russ went over the role of the advisory committee, which has assisted the IAOC with preparation of the SOW and is reviewing the RFI responses. John asked why more of this information had not been made public, and Russ responded that it is partly logistics that have delayed public distribution. Also, the RFI is section marked to indicate what information will be shared and what will be kept confidential, and much of the material provided has been in the confidential sections. As such, the IAOC will need to distill summary-level information for public distribution. John asked that the IAOC release sufficient information to the community so that the rationale behind the decision is clear, not just the decision itself.
The RFI responses were seen by several IAB members as a key input to determining the feasibility of the model, and for assessing the likelihood of implementation success. John expressed concern with the delay in publishing this information given the upcoming RFP deadline. Russ acknowledged that the IAOC would probably need to revise the schedule. John stated that there is not a good back-up plan in place if the board and the community do not reach a sufficient level of confidence and consensus in the next few weeks. Olaf had previously mentioned this possibility, and the group discussed the option of asking ISI to continue with a short-term extension if the situation were to arise. However, this was not seen as a particularly desirable option since key ISI staff were likely to have already begun their transition to other activities. It was also noted that ISI could choose to say “no” to this request, leaving the community without an RFC Editor at the beginning of the year. ISI has already indicated that they do not intend to bid on the RFP.
After further discussion, the general sentiment was that the level of concern over a backup plan was primarily rooted in each individual’s confidence with the model as it is currently written. Olaf again urged individuals to work diligently within the IAB and with the larger community to resolve open issues and concerns, so as to get the model to a sufficiently mature state by the RFP date. Some IAB members felt that the model was basically at this point already, while others thought there were important remaining details to close.
6. KMART Roadmap Draft
Gregory gave an update on recent work to secure routing protocol information when sent “over-the-wire” between peers. This work, nicknamed KMART, was the subject of previous BOFs and is currently a joint (non-WG) effort between the RTG and SEC ADs. A roadmap for the work has been documented: draft-lebovitz-kmart-roadmap-01.
Gregory introduced the roadmap draft, and asked the group whether there was interest in making this an IAB document, or if he should proceed with an individual submission. Olaf asked if there were higher-level architectural considerations to the problem, or if the draft is focused primarily on the project planning aspects of KMART. Gregory stated that part of the document deals with defining mechanisms that make it easy to use automated keying in a standard way for a variety of routing protocols. The document also has some project planning aspects, and Danny suggested that it might get better review in the routing area. Dave Thaler suggested the topic for an IAB techchat. There was agreement that the work was useful, but also that IAB members would like to hear more before making the current draft an IAB document. The topic will be scheduled for an upcoming techchat.
7. ISOC BoT
This discussion was originally scheduled but was deferred due to time constraints.