1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, approval of minutes, administrivia
Marcelo Bagnulo (incoming IAB)
Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Vijay Gill (incoming IAB)
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)
* Dave Thaler
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Note 1: Due to a schedule conflict, Dave Thaler joined the call part way through the discussion.
Beginning at the next meeting, the IAB will use webex instead of the ISOC bridge for voice conferencing. Cisco is offering webex free-of-charge for IAB use, which will save the IAOC the telephony fees of the ISOC bridge.
The Open Grid Forum Liaison item was added to the meeting agenda (item #5 below).
1.4. Meeting Minutes
Dow noted that the final transcript of the IETF 74 plenary had been posted for review. Board members will have until Friday to make any further corrections, at which point Olaf will post the transcript to the proceedings page.
No other meeting minutes were reviewed during this call.
2. IETF 75 Technical Plenary Update
Marcelo provided an update on the IETF 75 plenary preparations. A sub-group of the IAB has been working to define the goals of the session, and to identify speakers. Though there is clear consensus that the session should include an “education” component, there is not yet agreement on how much further to push on the topic (e.g., should the IAB attempt to convey a ‘position’ on some aspect of the problem?)
Vijay explained that much of the debate is rooted in business concerns, and is in many ways technology agnostic. John noted that in the past the IAB had engaged on other topics that were arguably business functions, such as the debate over TLD wildcards. In that situation, the IAB concern was about choices that would impede the free flow of information, were harmful to the end-to-end model, limited innovation, etc. He argued that with network neutrality, when a carrier restricts traffic to the degree that new applications cannot be deployed without ISP agreement, then the situation has moved beyond just a business function.
Jon Peterson noted that the ALTO and LEDBAT work had come out of the network neutrality discussion. One goal of those efforts is to try and expose the true desires of operators and users, which could then inform protocol design. Jon also raised the issue that the policy aspects of the debate are quite diverse, and are difficult to generalize due to differences between countries. Olaf suggested drafting a set of “non-goals” for the session as an approach to focusing the discussion on technology rather than policy. Stuart added that the goal should be to raise awareness, and that it was important to affirm the principle of not stifling innovation (i.e., avoiding “walled gardens”). Gregory noted that though network neutrality has been a topic of interest in ALTO, LEDBAT, and other IETF groups, there are also other IETF participants who may not have had as much exposure and would likely be interested in the topic.
After further discussion, there was agreement to develop a set of “non-goals” for the plenary, and to orient the second half of the session toward “impacts of network neutrality on IETF work and protocol design”. Marcelo will continue to mature the plan with input from the rest of the IAB, and will finalize speakers in the next few weeks.
3. T-MPLS / Uncoordinated Protocol Development
There was a short discussion about the forthcoming draft on T-MPLS and uncoordinated protocol development. Andy and other Board members have been working this issue with Monique Morrow and Stewart Bryant, who are the primary document authors. There is ongoing discussion as to whether to proceed with the IAB draft, or to also develop a more “punitive” document within the MPLS WG. The latest version of the IAB document focuses on the more general problems of uncoordinated protocol development, rather than details of T-MPLS. The Board planned for a quick turn-around review once the next version of the draft is distributed by Monique and Stewart.
4. Infrastructure ENUM Liaison
Olaf introduced this topic, noting that the previous IAB had planned to send a liaison message once the ENUM documents were finished. Those documents are now complete.
Jon Peterson then offered some additional background, explaining that there was a fundamental problem with the original ENUM concept (RFC 3761) because it required users to opt in. Though this is not a stated requirement in the RFC, it was part of the discussion at that time. The idea was that there would be a separate ENUM tree where carriers could provision whatever information they thought was appropriate. This data was conceived to be separate from user data, and include stuff relevant to carrier operations but not to users per se. There were long debates in the working group about procedures for administering the root zone. Since these issues were never resolved, and consensus was never achieved, the WG decided to publish a set of informational documents that deliberately left several open issues. The plan is to inform the community, and the ITU-T specifically, of the progress that was made in case they want to take the effort further.
Jon summarized by saying that in practical terms there is little difference between the infrastructure ENUM and simply using a private tree (of which there are many already in operation. John Klensin has some background in this area, and agreed to review the message so as to ensure consistency with prior agreements.
5. Letter to the Open Grid Forum
Due to the lack of activity for some time, the IAB agreed to close the liaison relationship with the Open Grid Forum. Olaf will send the message.
6. Retreat Topics – Initial Look
Olaf reviewed the proposed agenda for the upcoming IAB retreat. As last year, each IAB member will draft a short paper on a technical topic of architectural interest to the Internet. These topics will be presented at the retreat, and will serve as the raw material for developing the IAB’s work plan for the coming year. Olaf asked that everyone post their papers to the IAB wiki as soon as possible so as to allow for coordination and study before the meeting.
Marcelo, Russ, and Dave Thaler had already added their papers, and so they spent a few minutes introducing the topics to the rest of the group. The retreat will be held 27-28 March in Ashburn, VA.
7. Action Item Review
Danny requested feedback on this document from the IAB, and noted that the group still needs to decide whether to make this an IAB document or leave it as an individual contribution. He will be posting an updated version in the next couple of months.
7.2. Discussion on Infrastructure ENUM Doc
This action was discussed in agenda item #4 above.
8. Document Status
8.1. On RFC Streams Headers and Boilerplates
Olaf reported that there was a final discussion taking place on the rfc-interest mailing list related to text John had proposed a few weeks ago. Just today there was a new proposal that looks to satisfy John’s concerns. John agreed to review the latest text, and if sufficient, the H&B draft can now be published.
8.2. RFC Editor Model
There has been ongoing discussion of the RFC Editor model on the rfc-interest list as well. Olaf asked IAB members to participate in the discussion there, and then the Board will try to close any remaining issues during the IAB retreat.
8.3. Principles of Internet Host Configuration
Dave Thaler reported that this document in is AUTH48. Stuart will conduct a final review today, after which it will be ready to publish.
8.4. Design Choices When Expanding DNS
This document is in AUTH48, and Olaf intends to give the IAB “thumbs up” later today. It would then be up to the other authors, Patrik and Peter, to approve and release.
8.5. DNS Synthesis Concerns
No change in status.
8.6. A survey of Authentication Mechanisms
Gregory reported that he will review this document later in the week, and that Eric Rescorla would remain the editor but that he would shepherd it through. Gregory expected a revision from Eric sometime next week.
8.7. Evolution of the IP Model
Dave Thaler intends to revise the IP model draft based on feedback, but this work has been set as lower priority due to the NAT66 draft.
8.8. IAB IANA Draft
All IAB members were asked to provide comments on this document to Danny. Olaf noted that he will be visiting the DoC next week, and that it is important to continue making progress on this draft.
8.9. P2P Architectures
Gonzalo is currently revising the document, and should be finished by the retreat.
8.10. IAB Thoughts on IPv6 Network Address Translation
Dave Thaler stated that there is a technical point made by Gregory about host identification that needs to be incorporated. Dave and Gregory will talk offline to draft this text.