Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2009-05-27

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2009»IAB Minutes 2009-05-27

IAB Teleconference


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

1.1. Agenda

1.2. Attendance

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

1.3. Administrivia

No administrative items.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

Final minutes were approved for the following IAB meetings:

2009-02-04 Minutes
2009-02-18 Minutes
2009-02-25 Minutes

Dow will post the minutes to the IAB website.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1. ISOC Liaison

Lynn introduced her written report, highlighting ISOC’s planned response to the ICANN JPA inquiry. This led to a long discussion of ICANN’s role, the IANA function, and whether it is important to continue the JPA. During the discussion some concerns were raised about past ICANN’s performance in incorporating external technical feedback, particularly as related to issues of overall Internet stability. However, there was also concern expressed about the possible alternative arrangements that could arise if the existing relationships were disrupted.

The ISOC response to the NOI is nearly final and will be sent shortly. The IAB is working on its own response, which is likely to take a neutral position on the continuation of the JPA.

<begin ISOC Liaison written report>

ISOCÕs Liaison Report to the IAB
May 27, 2009

1. US Department of Commerce launches Inquiry on ICANN Joint Project Agreement
2. ISOC’s engagement in the Fourth ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, Lisbon, 21-24 April 2009
3. ISOCÕs IPv6 Operational Roundtable
4. ISOC Board meeting – July

1. US Department of Commerce launches Inquiry on ICANN Joint Project Agreement

The US Government’s Notice of Inquiry on the assessment of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system and the Joint Project Agreement with ICANN was released on May 23rd, 2009. Comments are due on or before June 8, 2009.

The NOI summarizes the history of the JPA and asks eight questions that are very far reaching. They ask:

– whether the original White Paper principles are still appropriate and whether ICANN has integrated them,
– whether the private sector-led, bottom-up process is still the most appropriate, or if there are better,
– about ICANN’s progress against the JPA core tasks and subsequent commitments made by the ICANN Board,
– whether progress is sufficient to transition ICANN to full independence, and if not what remains to be done,
– whether there are enough safeguards in place to ensure continued security and stability of the DNS, and if they can ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself,
– what the NTIA final report on the JPA should include.

ISOC is developing a comprehensive set of comments on the NOI, in consultation with our membership, the Board of Trustees and other key organizations in the ICANN and Internet communities. We are also liaising with Danny and Olaf on the IAB response to be sure we are reinforcing key messages wherever possible and as appropriate.

2. ISOC’s engagement in the Fourth ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, Lisbon, 21-24 April 2009

ISOC participated in the ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, held in Lisbon, Portugal, from April 21 to 24. The WTPF attracted over 700 delegates from 126 countries, including 33 Ministers, to discuss a range of opinions that had been prepared over the last 10 months by an ÒInformal ExpertsÕ GroupÓ advising the ITU Secretary General. ISOC staff participated considerably as a Member of the Informal Experts Group. After 4 days of speeches and occasional discussion, the documents plus a brief report from the Chairman were approved and issued in a document called Òthe Lisbon Consensus.Ó <>

In participating in the WTPF, ISOCÕs objective was to influence the drafting of the Secretary GeneralÕs Report and the Opinions, and also to ensure the debates were well informed. By joining the Informal Experts Group, we were successful referencing ISOC, the IETF and the RIRs in several draft Opinions. During the WTPF debates, we succeeded in getting a reference to the ITU definition of NGN included in the text during the discussions in Lisbon, against some resistance. This is very important in the ITU context because it helps to establish boundaries for future discussions of NGN. We learned from an intervention by the Chair of ITU-T Study Group 13 that those boundaries are being expanded under the rubric of ÒFuture NetworksÓ (see for example>).
ISOC and the IETF will want to monitor how this activity may impact upon the work of Internet standards organizations. We heard from several delegations that they had read and appreciated the fact sheets that we provided.

We were able to meet with a large number of delegations and explain why it is important to respect and engage with I* organizations, rather than assuming the ITU should perform functions already successfully managed by existing organizations. And finally, ISOC and allies from the RIRs and ICANN made our presence visible in an organized way. In the context of the series of meetings coming up in the next 3 years that could impact on the Internet and itÕs governance, our contributions here were a valuable starting point.

ISOC has developed a framing statement for involvement with the ITU. It says: ÒISOC engages with the ITU in areas where it makes sense to support their activities to advance the Internet, while working to create awareness of different and complementary activities taking place in the Internet ecosystem. We are always working to ensure that the Internet ecosystem continues to evolve to support a usable and useful open Internet.Ó

Consistent with that framing statement, the ISOC presence at WTPF was positive and builds a foundation for future engagement with the ITU in the critical period building up to the 2012 conference on the International Telecommunications regulations.

3. ISOCÕs IPv6 Operational Roundtable

ISOCÕs Standards and Technology team held itÕs second IPv6 operational roundtable in San Jose, California from May 19 Ð 21. This roundtable was initiated last year to support ISOC’s efforts to further dialogue with operators and content provider networks on the progress of their plans for deploying IPv6 and also encourage them to share their perspectives on the specific issues that will need to be confronted as the IPv4 network copes. Overall both ISOC and the participants were pleased with the outcome of this event which accomplished its objectives.

4. ISOC Board Meeting – July 24th and 25th

The ISOC Board is holding its next Board meeting on Friday July 24th in the afternoon and Saturday July 25th all day, immediately before IETF 75 in Stockholm. ISOC Board meetings are open and participation is welcome. The agenda and supporting materials are posted at:

Also, please note there is an informal dinner between the ISOC Board and members of various I* bodies scheduled for Saturday evening July 25th, 2009.

<end ISOC Liaison written report>

2.2. IESG Liaison

Lars did not participate in the meeting due to a schedule conflict. In his place, Russ mentioned a few items of interest to the IAB that were discussed at the recent IESG retreat (11-12 May).

The first topic, the Internet of Things, is one that Dave Oran presented at the IAB retreat as well, and will be the subject of additional discussion at the upcoming IETF. The second topic concerned the intersection of IETF culture and the cultural norms of some Asian countries. Specifically, the sometimes “direct” and even “confrontational” nature of discourse at IETF meetings and on mailing lists differs notably from the more polite, face-saving style of some Asian cultures. To help ensure that Asian IETF participants are able to successfully engage on technical topics, the IESG has invited several current (and successful) Asian participants to describe their experiences. At present the only goal of the meeting is to better understand this cross-cultural dynamic, but additional steps could come out of the discussion. The IESG intends to hold this meeting during its Sunday morning session at IETF 75, and Russ invited IAB members to participate if they want.

<no IESG Liaison written report submitted>

2.3. RFC Editor Liaison

Sandy summarized the items in her written report. There were no immediate questions from the IAB.

<begin RFC Editor Liaison written report>

RFC Editor Report

– We sent our proposal regarding the copyright to be applied to the Independent stream to the Trust (20 May 2009).

– We have created RFC metadata pages to meet the requirements described in Section 3.2.3 of draft-iab-streams-headers- boilerplates-08.txt, for example:

NOTE: These pages are prototypes and have not been announced to the community yet (although we do expect to make an announcement to the rfc-interest list shortly). Comments on the pages are welcome. Additionally, we do not expect to include the URLs in RFCs until the headers & boilerplate document is ready to be published.

– We are preparing for the upcoming bidders conference to be held 3 June 2009.

<end RFC Editor Liaison written report>

2.4. IRTF Chair

Aaron reported that he had received a message from Marshall asking if the IRTF stream would use the same copyright language as an independent submission. Doing so would allow for derivative works of IRTF documents. The IRSG had no objections to this plan, so Aaron will respond to Marshall today indicating concurrence.

Aaron then summarized recent mail from Stephen Kent, which challenged the lack of specificity in the proposed PKI RG charter. There was a short discussion about how the charter might be improved to address Stephen’s concerns while still allowing the RG room for research. For now, the IAB agreed that the discussion between Stephen and Paul Hoffman, the RG’s proposed chair, falls within the normal bounds of the charter development process and no specific IAB action is needed.

<no IRTF Chair written report submitted>

3. Independent Submission Editor (ISE) Statement of Work (SOW)

In Olaf’s absence, Russ described how the ISE SOW came to its current state. The SOW is now basically a position description. It also makes clear that the ISE will be an uncompensated position, but will have an expense allowance. The immediate question for the IAB was whether the current description is sufficient to send out to the community. Dave Thaler, Russ, and Olaf had read the current version and felt that it was acceptable. Others had reviewed previous versions, but had not read the latest draft in detail.

John expressed concerns that that current text insufficiently describes the role, but felt that the candidate pool would not change much as a result of further edits. As such, he did not object to publishing the SOW as is. It was agreed to wait another 24 hours to allow any final review by IAB members, at which point, barring major objections, the SOW will be distributed to the community.

4. RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work (SOW)

Though the situation for the RSE SOW was similar to that of the ISE SOW above, there was agreement that, of the two, the RSE is more critical. There had been recent email about the RSE description between John and Olaf, and it was not clear if the SOW text under review had incorporated all the latest changes to the RFC Editor model. Russ confirmed with Ray that Olaf has the pen for the RSE SOW, but since Olaf was not on the call to confirm alignment of the two documents, the group decided to hold the RSE for a week.

5. RFC Editor Model -06 Approval (pro forma)

The group decided on a 24 hour review deadline for the latest RFC Editor model draft, at which point it will be submitted to the I-D repository.

6. Harmful Draft / Russ’ Meeting with Malcolm Johnson

Russ had recently met with Malcom Johnson to discuss coordination between the IETF and ITU-T. At the meeting there were three main topics of interest, which Russ shared with the group: a possible MOU between the IETF and ITU-T, a leadership get-together, and some comments on the forthcoming draft on the harmful results of uncoordinated protocol development by different SDOs.

The IETF and ITU-T do not currently have a formal MOU, but Series A Supplement 3 (which is also available in RFC 3356) covers much of the same ground. After the meeting, Malcolm looked up this reference and agreed that it was quite comprehensive, and likely obviates the need for a separate MOU. Russ noted that Scott Bradner and Gary Fishman should be thanked for all of this previous work.

On the idea of leadership meeting, there was agreement that this sort of get together would be beneficial to both organizations. In the past the groups have met about once every 2 years, so the second half of 2009 would represent an appropriate window. The schedule and location of such a meeting will be worked offline.

The third item, T-MPLS and the forthcoming harmful draft, has been an IAB work area in recent months. Russ described how work in non-ITU-T forums continue to reference T-MPLS despite the agreements of the Joint Working Team (JWT). Unfortunately, the procedures of the ITU-T can make it difficult to withdraw a Recomendation, so that course of action will not be persued. The situation will be partly addressed with the forthcoming harmful draft, which is now entitled “Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful”. Malcolm provided some comments on the pre-release version, which Russ then sent to the document authors and to the IAB.

There was a bit more discussion by the IAB about the ITU-T input to the draft, namely the comments from Malcolm and Maeda-san. The Board will work with Monique and Stewart over the next week to address ITU-T concerns to the degree possible while still ensuring the overall message to the larger community is clear.

7. IAB Liaison to the 2009-2010 NOMCOM

The Board began considering who would serve as IAB liaison to the upcoming NOMCOM. Board members in the second year of their term are deemed ineligible, as they themselves would be up for potential NOMCOM evaluation. Also, an ideal IAB volunteer would have seen at least one previous NOMCOM cycle as an IAB member. Though this is not a hard requirement, it is seen as highly beneficial for the liaison to have had this experience. The pool of candidates meeting this criteria is quite small: John, Dave Thaler, and Danny. Jon Peterson was also seen as a potential candidate; although he has not seen a NOMCOM cycle from the IAB side, he has been through the process as a member of the IESG.

After some discussion, there was rough consensus that Danny and John had already “paid their dues” in previous years. Dave Thaler stated that it would be difficult for him to allocate the time needed for this role due to existing commitments. Jon Peterson said he might consider acting as liaison, but did formally commit at this time.

It was noted that the IAB has at least a month or two before it needs to identify a liaison. The question will be revisited at a future meeting.

8. Draft Response to DoC NoI

This topic was covered in item 2.1 above. The Board will work on their NOI response this week via email, and finalize next week.

9. Steve Kent’s comments on PKI RG

This topic was covered in item 2.4 above.