Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2010-04-28

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2010»IAB Minutes 2010-04-28

IAB Teleconference (Techchat)


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

1.1. Attendance

  Bernard Aboba
  Marcelo Bagnulo
  Ron Bonica (IESG Liaison to the IAB)
  Ross Callon
  Spencer Dawkins
  Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
  John Klensin
  Glenn Kowack (RFC Editor Liaison)
  Danny McPherson
  Jon Peterson
  Andre Robachevsky
  Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
  Dave Thaler
  Hannes Tschofenig
  Vijay Gill
  Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
  Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
  Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)

Note: Danny chaired the meeting due to Olaf’s schedule conflict.

1.2. Agenda

No agenda items were added.

1.3. Administrivia

Dow reminded the board of the upcoming BOF call with the IESG on June 2nd. There was a short discussion about the tentative ITU-T leadership meeting scheduled for the week after IETF 78 (travel planning, attendance, agenda topics, etc.).

1.4. Meeting Minutes

No meeting minutes were reviewed during the call.

2. Retreat Planning

The group agreed on four tentative architectural topics for the retreat and assigned topic organizers: privacy (Hannes), energy aware protocol design (Bernard), review of loc-id split work (Ross), and internationalization of identifiers (John). Danny then reminded everyone to complete their inputs for the discussion of IAB Mission and Vision.

3. Liaison Reports

3.1. ISOC Liaison

Lynn was not on the call due to a schedule conflict, but submitted this written report:

<begin ISOC Liaison written report>

Dear IAB members,

please find below ISOC’s Liaison Report to the IAB for Wednesday, April 28, 2010


I. Internet Society’s IPv6 Deployment Day

II. Future Internet Evolution! Meeting

III. ITU’s IPv6 Group Meeting

IV. ITU World Telecommunications Development Conference


I. Internet Society’s IPv6 Deployment Day – submitted by Leslie Daigle

The IPv6 Deployment Day on April 22 was an open meeting to share publicly many of the things ISOC has learned through the roundtable meetings, and to try to stir up some community effort to document some of the lessons learned– operational practices, for the next wave of deployers to make use of.

There were approximately 50 people in attendance. We had very solid presentations from our roundtable participants and invited presenters, and lively conversation between the floor and the various panelists. Even long-time IPv6 proponents in attendance said they thought it was a useful session (and not just the same old, same old IPv6 meeting). A successful event, marking and communicating real progress on IPv6 deployment in the world. It is not immediately clear that it advanced us on the path to capturing operational practices. Presentation materials from this meeting will be available on the website soon.

II. Future Internet Evolution! Meeting – submitted by Leslie Daigle

The presentations from the Future Internet Evolution! meeting in Anaheim are now posted on the website.
We’re continuing discussions of how to proceed with developing researcher awareness and interest at the IETF, without complicating IETF meeting scheduling.

III. ITU’s IPv6 Group Meeting – submitted by Bill Graham

The Internet Society submitted comments on the ITU’s IPv6 Group meeting report. The first version included reference to things that had not gone on in the meetings. The terms of reference for the two correspondence groups created by the March meeting were not as agreed. The draft also showed that a “liaison statement” had been sent to ITU-T Study Groups, and not to the IETF, although both were contrary to the wishes of the meeting.

Several Member States noticed these errors and insisted they be corrected, and the liaison statements withdrawn. The Saudi Arabian chair of the group agreed, and ordered staff to fix these errors. It would be useful to know if and when the IETF has received a liaison statement from the ITU IPv6 Group.

IV. ITU World Telecommunications Development Conference – submitted by Bill Graham

ISOC Staff are beginning preparations for the ITU World Telecommunications Development Conference. An analysis of all contributions on the WTDC web site as of 23 April has been completed, and was shared with Patrik Faltstrom, as IETF Liaison to the ITU-T.

V. ICANN DNS CERT – submitted by Bill Graham

ISOC President and CEO wrote to the ICANN Board with comments on both the ICANN CEO’s Nairobi speech to the GAC on the fragility of the DNS system, and also commenting on 2 ICANN proposals to create an action plan, and to build a global DNS CERT in California. The comments were the result of concern about the process used to come up with the proposals, and the top-down approach to security. ISOC members, including several active participants in IETF provided inputs to the ISOC consultation about the draft text of our letter, and the final result was greatly helped by those inputs. The letter has been well received by many in the community.

<end ISOC Liaison written report>

3.2. RFC Editor Liaison

Glenn summarized his written report, which contains information on both the ongoing RFC editing and production activities and the Transitional RSE (T-RSE) workplan. Bob Braden formally handed off RFC Editor responsibilities on April 19th; he will continue on the RSAG and as a member of the editorial board. He also noted that the RFC Series ISSN is registered in Paris, but that references are not showing up downstream. He is investigating the situation, and will send John some background email (since John will be meeting with TC46 next week). In addition to the periodic IAB report, Glenn also submitted his 6 week T-RSE report a few weeks ago.

<begin RFC Editor Liaison report>

RFC Editor Report to the IAB
Wednesday, 28 April 2010

– Final March Statistics

    – Sub: 51
    – Pub: 37

– RSE baton formally passed from Bob Braden to Glenn on 19 April, on schedule

    – announcement posted
    – Bob Braden will remain available under contract through June,
 after which he will continue as member of the RSAG and the
    Editorial Board.

– RSE mailing list established:

– Separate RSAG and IS Editorial Board web pages established


– RFC Series ISSN Number Registration Mystery

    – We discovered that we cannot find our RFC Series ISSN number
    in any of the registries; however, the ISSN International
    Centre confirms it is registered.
    – Currently working to resolve missing registries presence; Ray
    Pelletier participating.

– Presently editing our way through March submissions; typical burst (51 submissions) just before an IETF with high IESG membership turnover.

– Document lifecycle tutorial held during IETF 77; over 30 people attended.

TRSE Activities this period (since 6-week report)

– RSAG membership clarified; ISEB membership also clarified in parallel w/ ISE (N. Brownlee)

– Setting up RSE web page under RFC Editor area

– 6-Week Report Delivered

    – IAB comments requested
    – Full text to be posted to RSE web site.

– Interviews, organizing, analyses continuing.

<end RFC Editor Liaison report>

3.3. IESG Liaison

Ron reported that the IESG had received an appeal from JFC Morfin on the IDNA work, but that in the IESG’s assessment there were not actionable items for the IESG. The basic concern in JFC’s appeal is that additional work is needed in this area. The IESG response recommended JFC to introduce the needed work through the usual methods: BOF, Internet Draft, etc. JFC has not yet filed an appeal with the IAB.

<begin IESG Liaison report>

The following is the IESG’s report to the IAB for April, 2010:

I. Appeal to the IESG Concerning the Approbation of the IDNA2008 Document Set

– The appeal does not suggest remedial action by the IESG, and finding no appropriate action, the appeal is rejected. The IESG observes that the appeal includes a plea for the Internet community to initiate some work. To this end, Mr. Morfin should consider submitting an Internet-Draft and then approaching an appropriate Area Director to sponsor a BOF Session or sponsor publication of the document.

See the following URL for additional details:

<end IESG Liaison report>

3.4. IRTF Chair

Aaron had only one item to report (see below):

<begin IRTF Chair written report>

– Started a discussion with the IRSG of an IRTF research meeting similar to an IETF area meeting at IETF-78.

<end IRTF Chair written report>

4. IETF 78 Plenary Status

Marcelo and Vijay are to have a voice conference with Hal Varian this week to refine the scope of his talk and the overall session. After that meeting, they will provide a recommendation to the IAB on whether to add additional speakers.

5. Liaison Managers and Reports

The group entered into a discussion of liaison manager reports that are submitted to the IAB. In some cases these reports are of a private nature, and in other cases the information is suitable for public distribution. The latter form was more common in previous years, and older reports are currently archived on the IAB website.

In an effort to improve transparency, the board considered several approaches to making more information publicly available. It was noted that different liaison relationships, and their corresponding managers, have different assumptions about the public-private nature of these reports. This led into a larger topic of the role of liaisons, liaison managers, and liaison shepherds, and the various types of correspondence involved in SDO communications. A small group (Olaf, Bernard, Danny, Dow) will work offline to devise next steps to clarify the processes and improve transparency. The board will revisit the topic at the retreat.

6. May 5 Techchat Topic

There is currently no topic identified for the 5 May techchat. Danny will coordinate with Olaf offline to select a topic or cancel the 5 May meeting.

7. Action Item Review

7.1. Identifiers at the Applications Layer – DNS, URI/IRI, URN, Keywords, email addresses, etc.

John stated that he owes the IAB a paragraph on this issue, and that it is related to the retreat topic but may be too broad for the IAB to handle well.

7.2. IPv6 for IAB Business

Dow indicated that this item is still deferred due to higher priority tasks, and asked for any other volunteers who would be interested in taking it over (there were none).

7.3. Evaluate Mapping of IAB Website and IAB Communication Processes

Dow is still working on an initial survey and diagram of IAB communications.

8. Document Status

8.1. IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationalized Domain Names

John sent an note on this topic to the IAB this morning. He is doing some final editing to the draft, which now incorporates all of his, Dave Thaler’s, and Patrik’s previous comments. Patrik noted that since IDNA 2008 has cleared IESG review this document should make those references. John is in the process of revising the IAB document accordingly.

8.2. DNS Synthesis Concerns

This document is still deferred due to higher priority items.

8.3. A survey of Authentication Mechanisms

Bernard will revisit this draft after it is reviewed by Larry Zhu and Sean Turner.

8.4. Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions

Bernard will talk to Stuart and determine next steps for this draft.

8.5. Evolution of the IP Model

No change.

8.6. IAB IANA Draft

Danny is incorporating a few additional comments he received on Monday, and should have a revision out by the weekend.

8.7. IAB Thoughts on IPv6 Network Address Translation

Dave provided the XML source for this document to the RFC Editor for publication.

8.8. Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast

Danny should have a revision of this document out by next week.

9. AOB

9.1. OMA liaison

Vijay will report back to the IAB on OMA liaison status.

9.2. Study of IETF organizational behaviors

John informed the board that a doctoral student at Harvard business school is studying the manner by which leaders emerge in groups like the IETF. She has been communicating with Scott Bradner, and would be available to meet during the IAB retreat. He will send a note to the IAB list for discussion.

9.3. Voting Procedures for Docs

There was a brief exchange on the procedures for IAB document polls, which has been evolving. Further discussion is needed, but was deferred due to time.

9.4. RFC / IETF org structure and history

Glenn asked the board for any references, studies, or documentation on the way RFCs have been developed over time, including the evolution of checks and balances and longer-term trends guiding document content. John noted that he knew of some sources and would reply to the IAB list.