1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, administrivia, approval of minutes
Ron Bonica (IESG liaison to the IAB)
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Glenn Kowack (RFC Editor Liaison)
Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Vittal Krishnamurthy (IAB Scribe)
No agenda items were added.
Olaf mentioned the plan to move forward with the new IAB website, which uses wordpress for content management. Dow and Glen (AMS) have been working with Olaf to get the beta website up. Olaf noted that if the site transitions to wordpress it will change the URLs for much of the content, and proposed using 301 re-directs for all the current links. There was agreement that this approach should be sufficient, although Danny suggested sending email to the IETF list informing the community of the pending change (in case there are existing scripts that cannot follow 301 re-directs). Vittal had also previously volunteered to assist with the site transition, and will work with Olaf and Dow on this going forward. Olaf asked the board to look at the beta site and provide constructive feedback.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
Dow reported that there are a number of minutes that will be posted this week, with the plan to approve them at the Sunday IETF meeting. John Klensin noted that although the minutes are still taking a while to be completed, he was appreciative of the fact that this set would be ready earlier than previous IETF meetings.
2. Liaison Reports
2.1. ISOC Liaison
Lynn sent her report to Olaf, who had forwarded it to IAB. The report included a consolidation of the report from Bill Graham on the ITU plenipot. That report has 3 items which might be of interest to IAB, and Lynn will initiate a discussion on the IAB mailing list. Olaf will add Bill, Patrik, and Leslie, and start the dialogue based on Lynn’s comments. This topic is also on the agenda for the Sunday meeting at IETF.
<begin ISOC Liaison written report>
ITU Plenipotentiary Conference – Mexico
ISOC and most of the RIRs attended the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Mexico from 4 to 21 October. A significant amount of the controversy and time spent at the Conference focused on the ITU’s role with regard to Internet technical and public policy issues.
On the technical side, Brazil made a proposal on “ITU role in organizing the work on technical aspects of telecommunication networks to support the Internet” that, in its original form, would have resulted in completely reorganizing ITU-T around telecom networks to support the Internet. Several countries opposed the suggestion, and the version that was ultimately passed asks the TSB Director and TSAG to consult widely, to evaluate the need for “adjustments to the current structure of ITU-T, in order to fulfil the directive set forth in resolves above, by possibly suggesting the creation of a specific study group or other group on these matters,” and to report to the WTSA in Oct-Nov 2012, where appropriate action can be taken.
It seemed several Member States want to expand the work ITU does regarding telecom networks supporting the Internet, but also that many others do not agree. However, because there will be consultations and a report-writing phase, this will require some monitoring.
On the public policy side, most debate came down to the question of whether or not the ITU Member States would agree to say the ITU should explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and Internet organizations (specified as ICANN, the RIRs, IETF, ISOC and W3C) in Res. 101, 102, 133, and the new IPv6 Resolution, all on Internet matters. The final compromise was to do so, but in a footnote. The language shows that the ITU membership increasingly recognizes the need to work with the native Internet organizations.
It wasn’t an easy recognition to achieve, and only came about with agreement to add the tail “on the basis of reciprocity” to the sentence. Given that the named organizations are already very open, and that most are ITU Sector Members, there was no obvious give-away involved, but its inclusion was important to many countries who continue to see the ITU as the most important body for telecommunication and ICT discussions. This too will only have meaning once we know how the exploration of ways and means works out, so we will continue to monitor developments.
Finally, the new IPv6 Resolution has one area that may be cause for some concern. It calls on the TSB and BDT “to monitor the current [RIR/NRO] allocation mechanisms (including the equitable distribution of addresses) for ITU Member States or Sector Members, and to identify and point out any underlying flaws in the current allocation mechanisms.” It is not clear what is meant by “monitoring, ” or why the ITU should be monitoring the mechanisms and policies of independent organizations, such as the RIRs; what will be the basis for identifying “underlying flaws;” or what mechanism will be used to point those out.
Fortunately, paragraph 3 says that any proposals for changes should be communicated in accordance with the existing policy development process, but it remains to be seen how the Member States or the Bureaus will implement these instructions. Again, monitoring will be required.
A more detailed report on ISOC’s view of the outcomes of the conference is published at:
<end ISOC Liaison written report>
2.2. IESG Liaison
Ron summarized his report covering the IESG-IAB design session that took place a few weeks ago. The session was fairly successful in identifying the work needed going forward, and there was agreement that some types of tunnels will require management while others will not. An session report will be released in the next few weeks as an Internet Draft. Olaf reminded everyone that the IAB and IESG will be discussing this topic during the Sunday meeting in Beijing.
<begin IESG Liaison written report>
IAB/IESG Joint OAM Design Session
The IAB/IESG Joint Design OAM Session was held on October 12-13. An Internet Draft will be produced recording outcome of the session. Participants agreed:
– some Internet Tunnels require OAM while others do not
– all tunnel types should (at least attempt to) provide the same body of OAM data
– depending on the tunnel type, different mechanisms might be required to provide that data
More details will be provided in the ID.
<end IESG Liaison written report>
2.3. RFC Editor Liaison
Glenn reported that the draft with TRSE recommendations for changes to the RFC Editor model is available on the datatracker. He was initially expecting to complete the draft sooner, but found a number of issues that took longer to resolve than planned. He sent the draft to the RSAG last week, but has not yet incorporated feedback from them. Glenn will include these comments and background information in his presentation of the topic at the plenary in Beijing. The draft also went out on the RFC-interest mailing list, and he is working on a revised executive summary that highlights the high-level changes. Glenn expressed his confidence that the proposal is solid, comprehensive, and that it should work for the community and series. He requested IAB member feedback on the draft.
<begin RFC Editor Liaison written report>
RFC Editor Report to the IAB
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
RFC Editor Operational Items
Final September Statistics
September Statistics are within normal variance (2009 monthly averages: subs 27; pubs 24).
October Statistics (as of 26 October)
With nearly the entire the month of October behind us, output is a noticeably higher than usual. However, values are still within normal ranges. As usual, actual numbers appear to be the result of variance from month’s boundaries and queue behaviors (e.g., docs waiting for author’s approval that arrives randomly).
The Production Center recently reviewed historical page counts and output:
Year Pgs/Yr pgs/doc Docs/Yr 2010: 9645 29 328 2009: 7280 25 286 2008: 7562 26 290 2007: 9928 31 320 2006: 12649 28 459 2005: 8572 26 327
Pages per RFC has been stable between 25 – 31 over the last ~5 years, with 2010 well within range. There is no apparent trend in document size or overall page count. However, 2010 is shaping up to be a high output year (thanks to Production Center team solid performance).
T/RSE Activities This Period
TRSE draft recommendations in the form of a revision to RFC Editor Model (Version 1) are now available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2/ As planned, this includes RSE general responsibilities, authority, and a job description, as well as a search and selection process. A general announcement was made to the IETF general list, and a more detailed announcement to the rfc-interest list. I offered to the community to hold introductory WebEx sessions if there is any interest.
I will present the TRSE recommendations to the Monday plenary in Beijing. In preparation for discussions there, I am producing additional supporting information: an expanded executive summary, a description of what has changed from model version 1 to version 2, findings that inform model 2 design choices, and a road map for next steps.
My thanks to the IAB for their support during this project, and in particular, during recent weeks. Getting the design of the RSE position right took a more time and effort than I had anticipated. I now have a very high degree of confidence that the recommendations define the right position, support the community and its requirements, and will be attractive to highly qualified RSE candidates.
The RFC Citations RSE Committee chaired by Craig Partridge continues up and running. They appear to be nearing a consensus on their recommendations.
This report was prepared with input from Sandy Ginoza and the production center team. Please let me know if you would like additional or different information.
<end RFC Editor Liaison written report>
2.4. IRTF Chair
Aaron noted that there is not much to report other that the discussion of IRTF chair selection and coordination with ISOC. At present there are two strong candidates for the IRTF chair position; the IAB plans to meet with them during the upcoming Beijing meeting. There was a short discussion about scheduling and next steps in chair appointment. Aaron is available to remain in the position through the March IETF meeting if necessary. There was a question about the roles and responsibilities of the IRTF chair, and Aaron pointed the board to RFC 2014. Hannes suggested that he would like to know the candidates thoughts on how to bridge the gap between the IETF and the research community. The board will target Thursday morning at IETF for an initial appointment decision / vote.
No IRTF Chair written report was submitted.
3. Nomcom Liaison Report
Spencer had send an email asking about his participation in Nomcom interviews. There was consensus that he did not need to attend any of the interviews, which is in line with the practice of previous liaisons.
4. ICANN and Enhanced Cooperation
Olaf reiterated that he had received a note from Rod Beckstrom about an invitation from the UN to meet on December 14 to discuss Enhanced Cooperation in the area of Internet governance. He and Rod are coordinating on the matter to ensure that ICANN is not perceived as a single representative for the technical community, which involves a number of organizations (e.g., ISOC, IAB, IETF, IANA, RIRs, other SDOs, etc).
The IAB needs to determine next steps with respect to their participation in this meeting and any follow-ups, and Olaf asked board members for input. John said that he looked into the matter and was not yet clear what was expected of the IAB. There is an opportunity to provide comments, but the issues that are of interest at this meeting are not entirely clear. Lynn suggested that ISOC expects to have someone at the meeting, but the number of chairs in the room is not yet known. Olaf and Lynn will coordinate with Bill Graham concerning the relevant reference documents for any IAB comments. There was also agreement that future meetings should accommodate a better cross-section of organizations making up the technical community.
The IAB decided to have a follow-up meeting on this topic at the upcoming IETF, with participation by Danny, Andrei, Lynn, Russ, John, Leslie Daigle, and Bill Graham.
5. IETF 79 Technical Plenary Update
Danny updated the members on the status of IETF 79 Plenary preparations. Most of the speakers are now confirmed, including China Mobile, Comcast, China Telecom and IIJ. He is working with each presenter, and expects to have all the slides available for review on Sunday. Danny will send a revised session abstract to Olaf within the next few days that can be posted to the IETF agenda page.
6. IAB Schedule for IETF 79
Olaf said that he will tweak the agenda based on the meeting discussion and send it out to the board.
7. Privacy Workshop Update
Hannes reported that they have received two position papers so far, and are expecting at least several more. They have also had some comments about the schedule, since the date of the announcement for accepted papers does not leave much time to arrange international travel. He will be asking the IAB and IESG members to confirm their participation in the event, which will assist in logistics and planning. Olaf will talk to Hannes offline about a possible hotel discount or room block.
8. EU Meeting on 14 December
The board has been coordinating with the IESG on a Dec 14 meeting with the European Commission. Olaf said there were no major updates to report at present, but that he expected a short discussion with the IESG at the Sunday lunch meeting in Beijing.
9. New-work Mailing List
There was agreement on what the IAB wants to accomplish in cleaning up the list membership and setting guidelines for future use. IAB liaison shepherds will proceed with informing their liaison manager (and associated SDO) per Spencer’s recommendation. Olaf also clarified that the second list moderator need not be an IAB member, but would have to have adequate background and exposure to the liaison work associated with the list. The board agreed.
10. RFC Editor Next Steps
The board then entered into a long discussion about next steps in the revision of the RFC Editor Model, completion of the TRSE work, and coordination with the RSAG, IAB, and the community on getting to a final workable approach. As noted above, Glenn’s proposal will be discussed by the IAB and IESG on Sunday at IETF, and then presenting during the plenary on Monday night. Olaf stressed the goal of trying to get consensus on the high-level elements of the model first, then dealing with the more detailed components. There was some concern about the number of folks in the community who will have had time to review the draft before the plenary, as well as a similar concern for a detailed RSAG review, but the schedule has already slipped, and further delays could result in not having an Editor on board by the end of the TRSE contract. Olaf suggested collecting feedback and comments until mid-Dec, and then conducting a final revision to the document. However, this timeline might not be achievable depending on how easy it is to reach community consensus, and so he asked the board for input. The high level questions include the needed expertise/seniority of the
Editor, the management model, etc. He proposed that Glenn focus on these aspects during the plenary, and that the IAB track comments from the community to take as input in later approving the final document. Glenn is working on a new executive summary, which should be helpful in focusing the initial discussion on the high level changes.
John Klensin shared the concern that the shift in timeline could move the decision to February or March, when the original timeline was November or December. He wanted to make sure the IAB has the resources in place to cover any gap. Olaf asked Glenn if he had any ideas, and then proposed moving into an Executive Session to discuss the situation further. After much debate, it was agreed to get the overview document to the RSAG and begin the high-level gap analysis as soon as possible, even if the draft is not immediately updated to address the comments so far. Olaf will inform the community of the plan, and the upcoming discussion at the plenary, noting that the IAB too is still reviewing the doc. Glenn will not post a new revision of the ID before the plenary, but will continue to collect comments (some of which may be shared at the plenary) and will plan to post a revised draft later in IETF week if possible. Glen has continued to be in contact with all the individuals he has spoken to during the effort, and expects further coordination in Beijing.
11. Action Item Review / Programs Status
This item was deferred due to time constraints.
12. Document Status [5 min]
This item was deferred due to time constraints.
At this point in the meeting liaisons and scribes dropped from the call. Aaron remained on the call due to his role in the RSAG and IRTF stream.
13. RFC Editor Next Steps (cont.)
The IAB entered into a discussion of the TRSE contract execution, the timeline and plan for reaching consensus on the revised RFC Editor model, and possible mitigation approaches in case the plan discussed in today’s meeting runs into obstacles. There was a strong commitment by the board to finish the effort prior to IAB member turnover at the March meeting. It was also agreed to ask Glenn for an action plan with milestone dates covering the next few months.