1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, administrivia, approval of minutes
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Glenn Kowack (RFC Editor Liaison)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Ron Bonica (IESG liaison to the IAB)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)
No agenda items were added.
Dave and Jon have been reviewing the JFC appeal, and there was a short discussion of who should participate in the appeal discussion mailing list. Russ is recused as IETF chair. Ross is recused since he was an Area Director during the time the initial appeal was filed. John is recused due to his involvement in the documents that are part of the appeal.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
No meeting minutes were reviewed during this call. Dow will send out retreat transcripts in the next few days.
2. Liaison Reports
2.1. ISOC Liaison
Lynn was not on the call due to a schedule conflict, but submitted this written report:
<begin ISOC Liaison written report>
I. ISOC Participation in ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference
II. ITU IPv6 Correspondence Groups
III. Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG)
I. ISOC Participation in ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) (24 May – 4 June) – submitted by Bill Graham
ISOC staff participated as did all RIRs and ICANN (as observer). We submitted several written contributions, most in six UN languages, which were all published on ISOC@WTDC webpage. These were also submitted to the ITU as information documents, but somehow never were posted by them. The ISOC/RIR/ICANN participation was worthwhile. There were few opportunities to participate directly, but several delegates from different countries approached us to say they were glad we were there, and in some cases to offer partnerships, or to ask questions (including some we might not have expected). We were also constantly providing delegations with comments on text, and suggesting new language. Most of those comments and suggestions were incorporated in full or in part in the final documents. Key topics in the Internet space were IPv6, cybersecurity, and charging arrangements. On IPv6, there was a lengthy debate about whether or not to recognize external experts, or even ITU Sector Members (ISOC & 4 RIRs are Sector Members). Also there was an effort to assert a need for more regional and/or national control. Final language was more-or-less neutral for us. Cybersecurity and charging arrangements are shaping up to be the big Internet topics at the ITU Plenipotentiary in October.
II. ITU IPv6 Correspondence Groups – submitted by Bill Graham
The two correspondence groups established after the March 2010 IPv6 Group meeting at the ITU in March are showing signs of life. In both groups, questions have been posted that aim at determining if there are any problems in the current allocation system. So far no replies are posted. Deadline for submissions is likely to be the end of July. ISOC has discussed how to react with the RIRs and others interested, and have suggested holding back to respond to others’ postings rather than offering up an early target. The next ITU IPv6 Group meeting will be in Geneva on September 1-2. We are discussing internally how we should manage participation. At the March meeting, ISOC repeatedly made the point that this ITU Group is the wrong place to be discussing IP address allocation policy. We would appreciate hearing views about how important the meeting is seen to be, specifically because IETF is identified as one of the organizations to be involved in the proceedings, and we understood that a liaison statement about the ITU IPv6 Group was to have been sent to IETF.
III. Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) — submitted by Leslie Daigle
Earlier in June, ISOC (through our North American Bureau) lent initial support to a U.S. industry effort to form a Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) to develop consensus on broadband network management practices or other related technical issues that can affect users’ Internet experience. This is a collaborative industry effort to identify and address operational issues that have been at the heart of some of the recent issues attracting governmental attention. This is the early stages of the effort and many details have yet to be worked out but we believe this is an important opportunity to address key operational challenges facing the Internet user experience. It is certainly our intention to inject that broader, global perspective into their discussions.
<end ISOC Liaison written report>
2.2. RFC Editor Liaison
Glenn summarized his written report, noting that publication operations are going smoothly aside from one case where an author indicated that they were not getting the necessary level of editing support. This case involves a document cluster that is unusually complex. Per his T-RSE focus, Glenn is taking a bit more care with this situation than usual due to the implications it could have on the nature of the future RSE role. He also mentioned work on the style manual, and that Bob Braden will officially move over to the RSAG on 30 June 2010.
<begin RFC Editor Liaison written report>
RFC Editor Report to the IAB
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
RFC Editor Operational Items (since previous report, 26 May)
– Final May Statistics
– Sub: 25
– Pub: 33
May submissions are within normal variance, as is the publication number (2009 monthly averages: subs 27; pubs 24).
– June Statistics to date (22 June)
– Sub: 23
– Pub: 31
June is shaping up to be a very productive month. With only 3/4 of the month completed, the production center is already near a full month’s output. June submissions are within normal variance.
Sandy and the production center staff continue to reduce total docs in queue month-to-month (all the credit for this goes to the production center team). Recent end-of-month total docs in queue:
The high count in March (180) corresponds to IETF #77 and IESG turnover. Please be aware that there is significant inherent variance each month, so only the overall trend is meaningful.
T/RSE Activities This Period (since report to IAB retreat, 9 June)
– Craig Partridge is establishing the RFC Citations RSE Committee as previously reported. RFC Series ISSN Number Registration is now within the scope of this committee.
– For the first time during my tenure, we received a complaint from an RFC author, John Klensin, centering around production center performance on RFC-to-be 5894, part of cluster [C65]. We have responded with an “elevation procedure” consisting of 1) a review drafts to date and author complaints by Sandy Ginoza (as production center director) and I (as RSE), 2) notification of and discussion within the RSAG. Sandy and I will respond later this week or early next with our review and our recommendation for how to proceed. Our immediate goal is to provide satisfying results for the author, largely by completing quality edits and effective interaction with the author.
We are also determining if there are both specific (e.g,. narrow or one-time errors) or general (e.g., broader or process) errors that need to be fixed. There was a prior informal elevation procedure which this approach is similar to (note: we’re keeping this ‘lightweight’, but sufficient). Based on this experience, recommendations for a modified and more structured elevation procedure for the long-term RSE are likely.
– I am presently evaluating how to make progress on the style manual. There is no readily available time within the production center staff and I am considering alternatives.
– Research, analyses and discussion continue, especially on refining and filling out a general model for defining the permanent RSE role. This will inform my recommendations and proposed edits to RFC 5620.
– TRSE Report #3 (Week 14) was distributed to the RFC-Editor, RSAG, and posted on RSE web site.
– The RSAG was informed of the IAB’s Boston retreat decision that they continue under ‘interim’ status until the long-term RSE is appointed. There were no objections.
– Bob Braden continues to provide advice to the RSE and RFC Editor. He winds up his role as an advisor to the RSE on Wednesday, 30 June, when his contract expires. My sense is that the timing of Bob’s contract was about right, and the transition appears complete. Bob will continue as a member of the RSAG and the Editorial Board. To our disappointment, Bob will not be able to join us in Maastricht.
This report was prepared with input from, and the participation of, Sandy Ginoza. Please let us know if you would like us to provide additional or different information.
<end RFC Editor Liaison written report>
2.3. IESG Liaison
Ron was not on the call due to a schedule conflict, but submitted this written report.
<begin IESG Liaison written report>
The IESG has modified the CONEX WG charter and approved the modified charter for external review. The modified charter states that the WG must produced a document that describes CONEX use cases and obtain IETF consensus for that document before taking on any other documents.
<end IESG Liaison written report>
2.4. IRTF Chair
Dave Thaler mentioned the large number of IETF 78 meeting slot requests, and asked if there were a larger-than-usual number of RGs meeting. Aaron replied that 6-7 is pretty typical, and that the RRG, which has recently requested multiple slots, is not planning to meet this time. A short discussion followed regarding IETF meeting time and plenary scheduling.
<begin IRTF Chair written report>
– Six RGs have requested meeting time at IETF-78: NMRG, ICCRG, VNRG, DTNRG, P2PRG, MobOpts
An update: Additionally, HIPRG and SAMRG requested slots. SAMRG’s request appears to have gotten lost. The chairs have sent an inquiry to the secretariat.
– Started discussions about IRTF doc tracker tool requirements with Paul Hoffman & IRSG
– Previously mentioned IRTF ‘area meeting’ not scheduled at IETF-78 due to lack of IRSG interest
– ‘Internet of Things’ pre-RG discussions appear not to be progressing, perhaps for lack of leadership energy
– ‘Internet Economics and Policy’ pre-RG discussions appear to be moving slowly; Eliot Lear leading
<end IRTF Chair written report>
3. Retreat Follow-up
3.1. Post-meeting Review
Ross asked for input on the IAB data-tracker additions.
3.2. IAB Job Description for Nomcom
One of the actions from the retreat discussion on IAB mission and vision was to update the IAB job description for Nomcom to better reflect the current IAB work. Dow pointed the group to the current description on the IAB wiki, noting that it had last been updated in 2008. Spencer volunteered to update the IAB job description and post it for IAB review.
3.3. Activity Plans – Status and Coordination
There was a short discussion about the draft “action plans” for the retreat topics. Next steps will be determined offline.
4. IETF 78
4.1. IAB Schedule at IETF 78
The IAB will reserve a break-out room for informal, ad-hoc meetings on the Saturday before IETF. Russ confirmed that the meeting with ITU-T leadership will be held the Monday after IETF in Geneva. There is not yet a firm agenda for the meeting. A discussion of RFC 1052 was planned for the joint IAB/IESG meeting on Sunday afternoon.
4.2. Plenary Status
Marcelo reported that the plenary topic is coming together nicely. He will try to meet with all of the panelists prior to IETF, to ensure the talks comprise a coherent whole. He has met already with Ramesh Johari, and will be visiting Frank Kelly and Bob Briscoe next week. It was agreed to obtain abstracts from each of the speakers that could be distributed to the community, partly as a way to seed the Q&A session.
5. W3C Privacy Workshop Position Paper
Jon explained that he, Hannes, Bernard, and Karen Sollins had submitted their whitepaper to the W3C Workshop on Privacy for Advanced Web APIs. Though not written as an IAB document per se, the paper does cover IETF work in this area and is related to the emerging IAB work on privacy issues. A draft had been previously distributed to the IAB. The workshop will be held July 12/13 in London.
Editor’s note: The paper is now available here: http://www.w3.org/2010/api-privacy-ws/papers/privacy-ws-32.pdf
6. IETF 79 Plenary Topic
The board agreed that this would make a good plenary topic for IETF 79.
7. IETF not as SDO / Emergency Access
The Access Board is a U.S. Federal Agency with responsibility for specifying accessibility standards to support individuals with disabilities. It was recently brought to the IAB’s attention that the Access Board does not currently classify the IETF as a formal Standards Development Organization (SDO). Still, it is likely that IETF technologies will play a key role in the continued evolution of emergency communications services for the hearing and speech impaired, such as 911 response. Bernard described the current state of regulation, and some of the possible use cases involving IETF protocols. John noted that the IETF has traditionally refrained from developing specific profiles for individual organizations. The group agreed there were two components to the current situation: classification of the IETF as an SDO, and the use of IETF tools in various emergency access services. Bernard will develop some additional material on the topic.
8. Techchat Topic for 7 July meeting
The group decided to use the techchat slot on 7 July to continue the discussion of real-time services for the hearing and speech impaired. Bernard will lead the discussion.
9. Liaison Info Status
Dow reminded the group to collect background information on the liaison relationships they shepherd. Ross volunteered to draft a list of items to be captured, such as the motivation for establishing the liaison, current activity level, and work within the partner SDO that is relevant to the IETF.