Minutes
IAB Teleconference

2009-06-24

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

1.1. Agenda

1.2. Attendance

PRESENT
  Marcelo Bagnulo
  Gonzalo Camarillo
  Stuart Cheshire

* Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
* Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)

  Vijay Gill

* Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)

  Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
  John Klensin
  Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
  Gregory Lebovitz
  Andy Malis

* Danny McPherson

  David Oran
  Jon Peterson
  Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
  Dave Thaler
APOLOGIES:
  Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)

Note 1: Due to a schedule conflict, Danny left the call midway through the meeting.
Note 2: Liaisons did not participate in the Executive Session.

1.3. Administrivia

Two business items, the liaison to ITU-T about e174.arpa and the prospect of a liaison relation with the open handset alliance, were added to the agenda.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

Final minutes were approved for the following IAB meetings:

2009-03-04 Minutes
2009-03-18 Minutes

Dow will post the minutes to the IAB website.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1. ISOC Liaison

Lynn was not on the call due to a schedule conflict. She submitted a written report on recent ISOC activities:

<begin ISOC Liaison written report>

Topics:
I. ISOC Joins Internet2
II. Update on the ICANN JPA NOI
III. Kantara Initiative Launched
IV. ISOC DNSSEC Luncheon at IETF Stockholm
V. ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting – July 24th & 25th, 2009
VI. Joint IAB/IAOC/IESG/IETF Trustees and ISOC Board Dinner

I. ISOC Joins Internet2

The Internet Society recently strengthened it’s co-operative relationship with Internet2 by becoming a member at the Affiliate level. ISOC and Internet2 continue to collaborate on projects related to the Trust and Identity initiatives. This work touches on IETF protocols such as DKIM and the new Oauth work as well as the practical experience gained from the SMAL based Shibboleth and InCommon federation work. Membership in Internet2 will allow ISOC staff greater participation in these efforts.

II. Update on the ICANN Joint Project Agreement (JPA) NOI

The Internet Society submitted its comments responding to the Notice of Inquiry (Assessment of the Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System) to the Department of Commerce on June 3, in advance of the June 8 deadline. This allowed ISOC Chapters and members to see our response in advance, and to submit individual responses in support of it if they so chose. It was also sent directly to key players ahead of the June 4 United States House of Representatives open hearing on the topic.

The government received about 90 responses, and three notices of ex parte discussions with the Department (notices to say face-to-face meetings took place). Nearly 2/3 of submissions differ from the ISOC position, in that they recommend a renewal of the JPA or replacement by a new JPA, usually for a fixed period of time and with fixed milestones suggested for ICANN before the JPA is allowed to end.

The next step is for the Department of Commerce to study the responses and decide on the way forward. No plans have been made yet for the Department to hold a public meeting. If one is held, it and the announcement will likely not be made until September.

III. Kantara Initiative launched

On June 17th, ISOC was among the 45 organizations from the global identity and Internet communities that announced the launch of the Kantara Initiative, an organization aimed at solving the harmonization and interoperability challenges that currently exist among identity-enabled enterprise, Web 2.0 and Web-based applications and services. The Kantara Initiative has been founded to collaboratively foster the innovation required for broad adoption of interoperable identity-enabled solutions across industries, regions and fixed and mobile networks.

Board of Trustees and Leadership Council

The Kantara Initiative is based on a bicameral governance model where the Board of Trustees and Leadership Council work hand-in- hand as peers in steering the direction of the organization. The bicameral model ensures that all members and participants can have a voice within Kantara Initiative.

Roger Sullivan, vice president Oracle Identity Management, was elected president of the 2009 Kantara Initiative Board of Trustees and J. Trent Adams, outreach specialist, Trust & Identity, Internet Society, was elected chair of the Leadership Council. Initial Board of Trustee members include AOL, BT, CA, Intel, Internet Society, Fidelity Investments, Novell, NRI, NTT, Oracle, PayPal and Sun Microsystems. Representatives from Intel and the New Zealand government have Leadership Council seats on the Board of Trustees.

A Holistic View – Technology, Policy and Proven Interoperability:

The Kantara Initiative structure is designed to help foster the development of new identity-related technology and policy initiatives from initial proof-of-concept and incubation, to go-to- market and long-term adoption strategies. Existing projects moving into Kantara Initiative will benefit from additional community input which will include identifying new use cases, support for adding functionality, and opportunities for proving interoperability with other projects,initiatives and technologies.

All output from Kantara Initiative will be based on open standards with the goal of ensuring end user convenience, security and privacy. A commitment to open standards means the Kantara Initiative community will collaborate on projects that make use of all of the identity frameworks, protocols and specifications in the marketplace today. This means solutions could be built based on one or a combination of several IAF, ID-WSF, IGF, Information Card, OAuth, OpenID SAML 2.0, WS-*, XACML and XDI standards.

Focus Spanning Identity Initiatives – Nearly 20 Work and Discussion Groups in Progress Today:

Nearly 20 initial work and discussion groups are in progress today. All groups are open to every Kantara Initiative member as well as to the public, and anyone can suggest a new group to the Leadership Council at any time. Groups are formed by members and participants to address common issues and problems related to specific industries.

Proposed groups, which are being approved on an ongoing basis by the Leadership Council, include Concordia Use Cases, eGovernment, Federated Identity Model Agreement & Commentary (FIMAC), Health Identity and Assurance, Identity Assurance and Accreditation, Identity Provider Selection, Identity Theft Prevention, ID-WSF Evolution (OAuth Extensions), Japan, Multi-Protocol Identity Selection, Multi-Protocol Relying Party Deployment, Privacy and Public Policy, Telecommunications Identity, User Driven Information Technology and Volunteered Personal Information (VPI). A list of all of the groups in progress is available at: http://kantarainitiative.org/wordpress/?page_id=6

About the June 24 Kantara Initiative Public Webcast:

Hosted by Brett McDowell, executive director, Kantara Initiative, Roger Sullivan and J.Trent Adams, the public webcast, Kantara Initiative, Shaping the Future of Digital Identity, takes place on Wednesday, June 24 at 8:00 am US PT (14:00 UTC). The one-hour event will provide participants with an overview of Kantara Initiative including a review of goals, structure and opportunities for all members of the global identity community to participate in the organization. Registration and more information is available at: http://tinyurl.com/nsw3n5

IV. ISOC DNSSEC Media Briefing Panel in Stockholm during IETF75

The Internet Society is planning to hold a media briefing panel in Stockholm to provide an opportunity to air and discuss advances in deployment of DNSSEC. The format will be similar to the IPv6 media briefing event held during IETF74, with a moderated panel providing comments and discussing progress and developments. It is scheduled for the Tuesday lunch break, at a location near the IETF meeting. Panelists are still being finalized, and the session will be announced shortly.

V. ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting

The ISOC Board is holding its next meeting on July 24th (afternoon only) and 25th (all day) 2009, ahead of IETF75 in Stockholm. ISOC Board meetings are open and participation is welcome. The agenda will be posted shortly at:
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/meetings.shtml>.

VI. Joint IAB/IESG/IAOC/IETF Trustees and ISOC Board and Sr. staff Dinner

The joint IAB/IESG/IAOC/IETF Trustees and ISOC Board and Sr. staff Dinner is scheduled to take place on Saturday, July 25, 20:00 – 22:00 CEST, in Stockholm, Sweden. RSVPs are currently being accepted for the dinner via:
http://www.doodle.com/3hbk5qfuzq8chr32.

Additional details will be provided closer to the date.

<end ISOC Liaison written report>

2.2. IESG Liaison

Lars summarized the contents of his written report. He noted that the HOMEGATE BOF request had come just before the deadline, and that the mailing list has become very active. Olaf suggested this might be a candidate for an IAB BOF liaison, to assist in watching for any inter-SDO issues. Lars agreed, and thought that the CODEC BOF would also benefit from an IAB BOF liaison for similar reasons.

<begin IESG Liaison written report>

IESG Liaison Report to the IAB
2009-6-24

2009-6-23: The IESG sent a liaison statement to ITU-T TSAG and SG11 concerning Q.Flowstatesig.

2009-6-22: Although (or because) the HOMEGATE BOF was rejected for Stockholm, the mailing list is *extremely* active – the discussion is interesting and would benefit from IAB participation. This topic will need more coordination between the IESG and IAB.

2009-6-20: Approved Stockholm BOFs: MPTCP (TSV), CODEC (RAI), OGPX (APP), NETEXT2 (INT), MULTIMOB (INT).

2009-6-20: Jari is off duty for a few weeks due to a health issue.

2009-6-9: Magnus became a dad.

2009-5-XX: The IESG is continuing to test new datatracker functionality implemented by Pasi.

2009-5-30: The IESG jabber room migrated from psg.com to ietf.org (and is now password protected).

2009-5-29: The XMPP WG was chartered in RAI.

2009-5-2X: A meeting between IETF and ITU-T leaderships was discussed between the IESG and IAB, but the result was inconclusive (at least that’s my latest state)

2009-5-27: The YAM WG was chartered in APP.

<end IESG Liaison written report>

2.3. RFC Editor Liaison

Sandy summarized the items in her written report, noting that submissions from the Independent stream were still being held until the IPR issue is resolved. She explained that the RFC Editor had sent a request to the Trust asking to use the same rights that have always been associated with Independent submissions (RFC 3979). The request was sent because the new Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (TLP) text does not seem to allow that. John added that the provisions suggested by the RFC Editor and Editorial Board are a considerable superset of the IETF provisions, in that basically there are no restrictions other than attribution.

The hope was that the Trust would be able to swiftly approve that, but instead the new document from the Trust does not seem to approve that, and also further muddies the waters. Some have construed the posting of the new draft by the Trust as a “no” answer, but this has not actually been confirmed. A more general concern was raised about how the Trust’s inability to respond swiftly can result in this sort of blocking situation. Part of the issue is whether the RFC Editor would ask these questions of the IAB first, or go directly to the Trust. In the former case, both the IAB and the Trust would need to be able to respond in a rapid manner, which is often not the case today. Aaron noted that this issue is also blocking the IRTF stream.

It was decided to defer the process discussion to a later date, as there was no immediate action for the IAB. There is an action for the RFC Editor to clarify whether there was mis-interpretation by Trust.

<begin RFC Editor Liaison written report>

RFC Editor Report

– The bidders conference was held at ISI on 3 June 2009. Slides are available at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/rfced-procurement.html#Bidders

– Following a unanimous recommendation from the RFC Editorial Board, the RFC Editor will begin on July 1 to swap the initial section ordering of RFCs so that the Abstract will appear on page 1. See our announcement at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg06215.html

– The IPR issues for the Independent stream have not been resolved, so the publication of Independent submissions is still suspended.

<end RFC Editor Liaison written report>

2.4. IRTF Chair

Aaron elaborated on the IPR issue Sandy had raised, noting that the current situation also affects the IRTF stream. He then added two pieces of general feedback that he had received from IRTF contributors:

– that IRTF and Independent stream documents should have the ability to allow for either unrestricted derivative works or works with some restrictions. There is a long history here, as sometimes companies publish proprietary standards as RFCs; a decision now should not preclude that as a future option.

– that any derivative works be required to include citations to the original work.

Aaron also raised the issue that I-D language currently treats all I-Ds as IETF contributions. One can’t really use the I-D process without inadvertently attaching some IETF-centric stuff. Russ asked if this was always the case. John stated that Scott Bradner has always taken the position that all I-Ds are IETF submissions, and that Jorge has stated that they only care about IETF documents. He added, though, that in his opinion neither of those views have particular historical precedence and may not be workable now.

Aaron suggested that his intuition led him to Scott’s view, since the I-D process was developed for the IETF community, but that what that process implies has changed over time. For example, what are the IPR implications and disclosure rules? John said that there was not much conflict when there was a firm position that all rights for an I-D went away after 6 mos. A temporary grant of rights to the IETF was ok, but the notion of I-Ds expiring has become weaker over time. Scott now is taking the position that those temporary rights are permanent, leading to the conflict.

Dave Thaler noted some related issues with the boilerplate text. It was decided to schedule a later meeting to work through these issues in more detail.

Aaron then moved to a discussion of the upcoming RG review at IETF 75. He had tentatively planned for a meeting with the RRG, but the co-chairs there felt that it would be better to delay the meeting since they expect their architectural recommendation some time after IETF 75. As an alternative, Aaron suggested the ICCRG, which is also meeting in Stockholm and would relate to the upcoming techchat on congestion control.

<no IRTF Chair written report submitted>

3. Update on Routing Security Discussion

At the meeting last week, the IAB sub-group working on routing security decided to have external people from both sides present their perspective on the RPKI single vs. multiple root question. The goal was to improve the IAB’s understanding of the trade-offs, and in turn help the IAB determine whether to take a position on the issue. So far it has been challenging to arrange this dialogue due to various organizational and political sensitivities, and an apparent web of interests of invested parties. There seem to be some advocates of a “deploy-multiple, then move to single” model, but there is not yet a clear path as to how such a transition would occur. Related to this debate are concerns of external bodies over U.S. DoC control of RPKI or associated routing functions.

It was agreed that the IAB should send a note to the NRO, so that it is clear that the IAB is not currently advocating their (or anyone’s) position on this issue. The IAB has been trying to craft a clearer internal work-plan for this space, but has had limited success thus far partly due to the challenges noted above.

4. IETF 75 Technical Plenary

There was a short discussion about preparations for the upcoming plenary on network neutrality. The group considered session logistics, such as the amount of time for each speaker and how to structure the question and answer session.

Olaf then noted that he had sent an email to ISOC about technical areas of mutual exploration, such as unwanted traffic and IPv6 deployment. He asked other Board members to weigh in on the mailing list regarding topics of interest. Danny added that he had previously read the ISOC IEEE paper on unwanted traffic, so there had been some informal coordination already.

5. July 22 IAB Meeting

The IAB made tentative plans to cancel the July 22 meeting.

6. Trust Provisions

Part of the Trust provisions discussion took place during agenda items 2.3 and 2.4. Olaf summarized that the TLP allows for outgoing rights to broader than those in the IETF stream, and that this is what is desired for the IRTF, IAB, and Independent streams. One approach would be to document this in an RFC, possibly drafted by Marshall. John responded that he had concerns with this plan. Based on the RFC Editor’s report, it was agreed that the IAB needs to get more state on the situation. As such, further discussion was deferred to a later date.

7. Appointment of RSAG

Olaf had previously forwarded a list of the proposed RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). Much of the RSAG membership is drawn from the current RFC Editorial Board. The proposed membership is:

Bob Braden
Scott Bradner
Brian Carpenter
Bruce Davie
Aaron Falk
Joel Halpern
Bob Hinden
John Klensin
Craig Partridge
Jim Schaad
Glen Zorn

There were no outright objections to this list, though John asked the question about IAB participation on the committee (which would impact him). This question was considered in the next item.

The overall role of the RSAG is described in: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-07

8. Appointment of the ACEF

The board then considered the membership of the Ad-hoc Committee for Selection of Editorial Function (ACEF), an additional ad-hoc committee who will assist and advise the IAB during the 2009 evaluation process. In particular, this group would assist with evaluating candidates for the RFC Series Editor (RSE):

Scott Bradner
Bruce Davie
Aaron Falk
Joel Halpern
Bob Hinden
Craig Partridge
Jim Schaad
Glen Zorn

Two questions remain concerning this committee:

– should IAB members be part of this committee, liaise with it, or remain isolated from it (in which case the IAB would talk only with the most promising candidates)?
– should IAD members participate on this committee?

Russ noted that having an IAB member present during NOMCOM discussions (as a liaison) is helpful to ensure due diligence. This was seen as a good argument for having at least one IAB member on the ad-hoc committee. Olaf suggested that adding 1-2 more would make it easier to ensure that at least one IAB member was available for every physical (or phone) interview, in turn giving the IAB direct knowledge of the conversation. It was agreed to have three IAB members participate in this committee. Olaf, Russ, and John volunteered; there were no objections by other Board members.

The question of IAD participation in the ad-hoc committee was taken up during the Executive Session.

9. Liaison to ITU-T SG2 on e164.arpa Delegations

Olaf had sent an email on this topic earlier in the day, and asked the group to review the text. John Klensin and Jon Peterson will work with Olaf to close this by the end of the week.

10. AOB

10.1. ICT Standardisation Whitepaper from the EU Commission

Olaf gave the Board a heads up that the EU Commission intends
to accept the IETF as a “recognized standards body” in the coming months. After the announcement there will be a comment period of about two months. He suggested that the IAB should consider writing such comments once the time arises, and asked members to send thoughts on the matter to the IAB list.

10.2. Open Handset Alliance

The question of establishing a liaison relationship with the Open Handset Alliance was deferred due to lack of time. It will be taken up on the IAB mailing list.

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

At this point in the meeting, liaisons and the IRTF chair dropped from the call.

11. IAD Membership in the ACEF

The board discussed whether it was appropriate to have the IETF Administrative Director (IAD) participate in the ACEF. After deliberation it was agreed that the IAD should participate, but only as a passive observer. Olaf will draft text describing this role.