Minutes
IAB Teleconference
2009-10-28
1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, administrivia, approval of minutes
1.1. Attendance
PRESENT
Marcelo Bagnulo
Ron Bonica
Stuart Cheshire
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
John Klensin (late)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Gregory Lebovitz
Danny McPherson
David Oran
Jon Peterson
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Dave Thaler
APOLOGIES:
Gonzalo Camarillo
Vijay Gill
Andy Malis
Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
1.2. Agenda
Items 6 and 7 were added to the original agenda. Olaf also noted a few mailing list discussions that were less time critical.
1.3. Administrivia
No administrative items were discussed.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
Dow reported that the draft minutes for the 2 September and 25 September IAB meetings are posted for review.
2. Liaison Reports [10 min]
2.1. ISOC Liaison
<begin ISOC liaison written report>
ISOC’s Liaison Report to the IAB
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Topics:
I. ISOC Releases Public Statement in Support of the USG and ICANN’s New Framework for Internet’s domain name and addressing system
II. ISOC Briefing Panel on Bandwidth and Capacity Realities
III. 2010 ISOC Board of Trustees Meeting Dates
——–
I. ISOC Releases Public Statement in Support of the USG and ICANN’s New Framework for Internet’s domain name and addressing system
On September 30, the US government and ICANN brought the JPA to an end and issued an Affirmation of Commitments in which they commit to ICANN’s role as a steward that must act in the public interest, as well as increasing transparency, taking steps to deal with identified problems with the whois policy, and to satisfy stakeholders’ demands before new gTLDs are introduced. ISOC was very pleased to see that many of the points we had raised were directly addressed in the new document, particularly our emphasis on ICANN’s need to work in the public interest. But the commitments are only the beginning of a lot of hard work. The value of the commitments made by both parties can only be judged by how they are implemented. The Internet Society remains committed to working with ICANN, and other stakeholders, to develop and implement the detailed and balanced mechanisms needed to ensure openness, accountability and the overall effectiveness of this vital organization. We look forward to working with the IAB and IETF to strengthen ICANN.
ISOC’s public statement is available at the following link:
http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=1287
II. ISOC Briefing Panel on Bandwidth and Capacity Realities
Following on from our last two events on IPv6 and DNSSEC, plans are underway for a briefing panel on bandwidth and capacity realities in Hiroshima. More details will be made available once the plans are finalized.
III. ISOC Board of Trustees Meetings
ISOC Board of Trustees meetings are open and participation is welcome. The final Board meeting of 2009 is scheduled for 4-5 December 2009 in Amsterdam, Netherlands,
The 2010 ISOC Board of Trustees meetings have been published on the Website at the following link:
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/meetings.shtml
.
For your convenience, the meeting dates are also listed below.
*March 27-28, 2010 – Anaheim, CA
*June 19, 2010 AGM Ð Brussels, Belgium
*June 19 Ð 20, 2010 Ð Brussels, Belgium
*November 13-14, 2010 Ð TBD
<end ISOC liaison written report>
2.2. IESG Liaison
<begin IESG liaison report>
IESG Report to the IAB
======================
On October 15, the IESG held an informal telechat. Members of the IAB were invited. Among other topics, the IESG discussed relations with other SDOs. The IESG affirmed it previous position which is stated below:
The mission of the IETF is make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. The IETF is solely responsible for maintenance of the IP protocol suite.
When an SDO outside of the IETF identifies a new Internet requirement, it may proceed according to either of the methods listed below:
1) Submit the requirement to the IETF
2) Define a new protocol that shares neither name nor codepoints with any IETF protocol.
The IETF prefers the first option, but admits the existence of circumstances in which the second option may be required.
In order to exercise the first option, the SDO should document the requirement in the form of an Internet Draft. It may also send a liaison statement. If there exists a working group whose charter includes this work, the Internet-Draft should be brought to their attention. The IETF will adapt the Internet-Draft as a work item if there is community consensus to do so.
If there is no community consensus to address the problem, the Internet-Draft initiator can do any of the following:
– restate the problem in a way that is more likely to pique IETF community interest, and/or work with other IETF experts to gain support and understanding of the problem and possible solutions. – create a new protocol, outside of the IETF, that shares neither name nor codepoints with any IETF protocol
-abandon the problem
The IETF will publicly respond to any attempt to modify Internet protocols outside of the IETF. The response will include a statement that the protocol is not approved by the IETF and, if appropriate, a discussion of how deployment of the proposed modification might hurt the Internet.
<end IESG liaison report>
2.3. RFC Editor Liaison
<begin RFC Editor liaison report>
RFC Editor Report to the IAB
– 30-day last call for draft-braden-independent-submission ended 14 October 2009. The IESG 3932 review is complete (no problem with publication). The RFC Editor expects to post an updated version of this I-D to address some comments.
– The RFC Editor had a transition meeting with AMS the week of 10/19.
– Bob Braden will give the RFC Editor tutorial at IETF 76. This will be the final RFC Editor tutorial provided by USC/ISI.
– At IETF 76, the RFC Editor will have office hours Mon – Wed between the hours of 9:30 – 4:30.
<end RFC Editor liaison report>
2.4. IRTF Chair
Aaron reported that the Routing Research Group (RRG) is scheduled to meet with the IAB at IETF 76. He also noted that the changes to RFC 3932 will impact the IRTF stream in a similar manner to what is being discussed for the Independent Stream.
3. IETF 76 Planning
3.1. IAB Schedule at IETF 76
At the Sunday IAB/IESG joint session there will be a presentation on the U.S. Smart Grid initiative, as well as the week-ahead hot spots discussion. Time permitting, the IAB and IESG may discuss inter-SDO coordination.
Gregory noted that NTT has implemented a router script that checks BGP advertisements against the JPNIC RIR, and that they had offered to present this work to the IAB. It was agreed to schedule this talk for the IAB’s technical meeting on Sunday, after which the (related) discussion of RPKI will be resumed. The board may review the plenary slides if these discussions finish early. Also on Sunday are the newcomer’s reception and the IAB dinner.
3.2. IETF 76 Plenary
Dave Thaler reported that the recent focus has been on revising the character encodings draft ahead of the IETF 76 submission deadline. Once this revision is complete, he, Stuart, and John will work on the plenary slides. It was also agreed to draft a summary of the topic and goals that would be sent out to IETF-attendees prior to the plenary.
4. Smart Grid Liaison
Russ gave some background on the U.S. Smart Grid initiative and their interest in using IETF protocols as a key part of their architecture. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who is coordinating various elements of the work, has reached out to SDOs like the IETF encouraging them to join the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SDIP). The IAB decided that the best approach would be to appoint a liaison who would serve as the IETF representative to Smart Grid. The first meeting, where members of the governing board will be elected, takes place on 16 November, so the IAB will need to confirm a suitable liaison very soon. Dave Oran agreed to compile a list of possible candidates. Russ also noted that Phil Roberts will likely participate on behalf of ISOC, who will join as a Sector member.
5. ID Boilerplate
This tentative item was added based on a mailing list discussion of ID boilerplate text, but it was decided that no voice time was necessary.
6. 3932bis Strawpoll
There was a short discussion about the text in 3932bis concerning the IAB role in the appeal process. The board did not reach a consensus on the call, and will take the discussion to the mailing list.
7. UNICODE Consortium
The board briefly discussed recent proposals in the UNICODE consortium that conflict with IDNA work, and scheduled time to discuss the matter further while in Hiroshima.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Note: Sandy dropped from the call at this point in the meeting.
8. ICANN Liaison
After a short discussion, the board unanimously agreed to confirm Thomas Narten for another year as IETF liaison to the ICANN board.
9. RSE Discussion
The IAB continued its discussion of the way forward for the RFC Series Editor (RSE). Over the past week a rough consensus has begun to emerge within the IAB to re-scope the role of the first- term RSE. Instead of implementing the RSE role solely as defined in RFC 5620, the individual would instead work with the IAB to better frame the long-term responsibilities of the RSE, including their relationship with the other components of the larger RFC Editor function. The group will attempt to finalize this plan over the next week, and will draft initial correspondence to inform the involved parties and the larger community.