1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, administrivia, approval of minutes
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Glenn Kowack (RFC Editor Liaison)
Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Hassan Zaheer (IAB Scribe)
Vittal Krishnamurthy (IAB Scribe)
Ron Bonica (IESG liaison to the IAB)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
No agenda items were added.
No administrative items were discussed.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
There was one set of draft minutes posted for review, but the board decided to conduct an editing pass prior to approval.
2. IAB Document Errata
Danny had sent an email to the IAB list with recommendations for theIAB stream errata (5 in total). He reported that there are no major issues with the open tickets, and that a two week last call with the IAB should be sufficient for comments. It was decided to fast track the changes, and set just a 24 hr comment period, otherwise Danny can close the items per his recommendations.
3. IETF 79 Status
There a short discussion regarding IAB meeting time and plenary scheduling at the upcoming IETF 79 in Beijing. One of the changes is that the IAB technical plenary will be held Monday evening. There was some concern about the availability of speakers for the “Future of Applications” topic, so the board may need to consider an alternative. The board then discussed possible working sessions on their program topics on Saturday. It was agreed to keep the Saturday meetings ad-hoc and informal, but Olaf encouraged program leads to make use of the time.
4. Liaison Shepherds and Charters
Hannes and Bernard had been exchanging email about the nature of liaison shepherds, and it has become clear that their primary role is to create a management structure to enable review of the liaison relationships with other organizations, and to facilitate more consistent reporting back to the IAB. Having shepherds will ensure at least one IAB member will ask for an update on the liaison at least once a year. Shepherds should also be tracking the state of the liaison relationship on an ongoing basis, including any actions or areas of overlap with IETF work. This is useful in keeping the IETF informed, and for coordinating on work that is brought into the IETF. The board agreed on this characterization of the liaison shepherd role.
5. ITU IPv6 Group
The ITU-T has an IPv6 group, and the IAB has been coordinating on a possible response to a recent liaison statement from them. There was a discussion about the liaison, which raised some ideas about different ways of managing IPv6 address space allocation. The IAB agreed that the recent liaison does not make clear the problem(s) with the existing model, or describe what a change to this model would attempt to improve. At present, addresses are allocated via the RIRs, and national and local registries, and this model seems to work well. The IAB will wait for further clarification from the ITU-T.
6. New Work Mailing List
Spencer reported that he is still working on the guidelines for list membership.
7. Action Items
7.1 Identifiers at the Applications Layer – DNS, URI/IRI, URN, Keywords, email addresses, etc.
John is in the process of capturing more of the internationalization issues in text, and will be looking for feedback from the board.
7.2 Privacy Program
Bernard reported that the privacy workshop is likely to occur on either 8 or 9 December. He is working with Karen Sollins at MIT to arrange a meeting room. The board finalized these dates.
7.3 Internationalization Program
This is related to item 7.1, and will likely be combined.
7.4 IANA Evolution Program
Marcelo has been working to describe the roles related to IETF protocols, IANA, and the various protocol parameter registries. There was a short discussion on this topic, and it was agreed that a small group would organize a call in the upcoming week.
7.5 SDO Coordination Program
Ross reported on that they have been looking at the document from the US ACCESS board, which raised the question of the IETF being classified as a formal SDO. Olaf then asked about the liaison coordination with ITU and other SDOs. This led to a discussion about the IAB tracking the status of liaison relations via the liaison shepherds.
7.6 IPv6 for IAB Business
No change in status.
7.7 Evaluate Mapping of IAB Website and IAB Communication Processes
No change in status.
8. Document Status
8.1 IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationalized Domain Names
This document has been submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.
8.2 Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions
Bernard stated that the document has had a lot of review and comment, and that it is probably ready for last call.
8.3 Evolution of the IP Model
Dave Thaler noted that he has returned to this document now that the internationalization document is out of the way.
8.4 IAB IANA Draft
Danny will take another review of this draft based on the recent discussions.
8.5 Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast
Dave Thaler has some substantive comments on the Anycast document that he will send to Danny for review.
There were no other business items added.
10. IAB Chair Selection Procedures
The board has been discussing the possibility of changing the IAB chair selection cycle from March to November. One of the reasons for this is that with the March cycle, new board members are forced to participate in a selection decision immediately after joining the board. In many cases, new board members lack context that would inform their decision; they may lack familiarity with the candidate(s) under consideration, and the IAB loses the input from outgoing board members who do have that context, and may have more familiarity with the candidates.
An advantage of the March cycle is that appointment
aligns with IAB member terms, as determined by the Nomcom. A Nov. appointment of a chair could cause complications if the appointee were not renewed as an IAB member in March (for example). The board discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the two options. It was also noted that there is a learning period when a new person takes over as chair, and so chair terms of less than about 4 years (two IAB cycles) can be problematic. Interaction and coordination with Nomcom was seen as a key advantage of the March selection cycle, and that a chair turnover that allowed a gradual transition (i.e., the outgoing chair still on the board for another year) was ideal. The group decided to organize a poll to select either the November or March cycle.
11. Appeal Responses and IAB Member Recusal [10 min]
This item was deferred due to time constraints.