Minutes of the 2011 IAB Retreat, 12-13 May 2011
- Bernard Aboba (IAB Chair)
- Ross Callon
- Alissa Cooper
- Spencer Dawkins
- Lars Eggert (IRTF Chair)
- Joel Halpern
- Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
- David Kessens
- Olaf Kolkman
- Danny McPherson
- Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Assistant)
- Jon Peterson
- Andrei Robachevsky
- Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)
- Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
- Dave Thaler
- Hannes Tschofenig
- Sean Turner (IESG Liaison)
GUESTS (present for agenda items 10-12 only)
- Leslie Daigle
- Mat Ford (via phone)
- Eliot Lear (via phone)
- Lucy Lynch
- Walda Roseman
- Sally Wentworth
- Priorities for 2011
- Program Framework
- IAB Stream Management
- The IAB and New Work in IETF and IRTF
- IANA Evolution Program
- RFC Editor Program
- HTTP/Web Evolution Initiative
- IETF 81 Plenary Discussion
- SDO Coordination: Working Relationships
- Interaction with Governments
- The IAB and ISOC: Better Together
- DNS Initiative
- IP Evolution Initiative
- Return to Program Framework
- Review of meeting
1. Priorities for 2011
The board reviewed potential work items for 2011 and agreed to use the following priority notation for future discussions:
P0 = MUST be done, within a specific time frame
P1 = MUST be done, time frame negotiable
P2 = SHOULD be done
P3 = Optional
P4 = Of dubious value
The board discussed the IAB responsibilities outlined in RFC 2850, and defined those as things that only the IAB can do:
a) IESG appointment confirmation
b) Architectural oversight
c) Standards Process oversight and appeal
d) RFC Series and IANA
e) ISOC Liaison
f) External Liaisons
The board agreed that in addition to the above, the IAB MUST:
- Respond to IANA NOI-bis (inflexible time frame)
- Respond to Appeals (inflexible time frame)
- Organize Technical Plenaries (inflexible time frame)
- Respond to liaisons to IAB (e.g. ITU-T) (inflexible time frame)
- Make other appointments (e.g. IRTF chair) (flexible time frame)
- Make Liaison appointments (flexible time frame)
The board discussed areas where the IAB can make a difference, and agreed that Architectural oversight (e.g. resolution of technical disputes, IAB opinions as expressed in documents) and Standards Process oversight and appeals (e.g. security considerations) should be the main areas of attention.
2. Program Framework
The board reviewed the Program and Initiative framework, using the following definitions:
PROGRAM: a long-term activity scoped and managed by the IAB that may have various deliverables over time.
INITIATIVE : a short-term activity that can be completed in(one tenure), usually resulting in an RFC, statement, or presentation.
The board discussed the role of a Program Lead, and agreed that while a Program Lead is usually an IAB member, a non-IAB member may act as Program Lead so long as there is an IAB member on the team. Program leads do not require specific expertise, but should have a general understanding of the topic from a technical, business and/or policy perspective. Program Leads are responsible for facilitating activities within the Program, providing oversight, ensuring continuity and bringing an IAB perspective to the work.
The board also discussed the role of Program Members, and agreed that Program Members will be selected by the IAB. Program Members need not necessarily be IAB members. Program Members are responsible for participating in the Program.
The board discussed ways to better communicate Program and Initiative activity plans to the IETF community. It was agreed that each Program and Initiative would be given a page on the new IAB website (expected launch date July 2011), in addition to a page detailing the overall Program and Initiative structure as outlined in Olaf’s original email to the community from July 2010 [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07731.html].
3. IAB Stream Management
The board discussed the IAB stream as defined in RFC 4845. The board discussed the need for documents to be clear about what they represent, and what is required for IAB approval of a document (i.e. active agreement versus lack of disagreement).
The board discussed the need to clarify what IAB consensus means for things like workshop reports. For workshop reports, IAB consensus on the document means that the document is an accurate description of the discussion at the workshop, and not necessarily that the IAB agrees with the opinions expressed at the workshop.
There was a brief discussion about handling minority opinions. The board agreed that minority opinions should be handled with care, as a minority opinion could be interpreted as a lack of consensus. However, Russ pointed out that in some cases it is helpful to have the minority opinion expressed (e.g. in an appendix to the document) as a way to give more context.
The board discussed the process for approving documents on the IAB stream. Joel and Dave Thaler agreed to work together on a proposal for discussion at a future IAB meeting that describes what kinds of documents are appropriate for the IAB stream, how the IAB will accept those documents in to the IAB stream, and how those documents will be approved on the IAB stream.
4. The IAB and New Work in IETF and IRTF
The board discussed the plan for IAB management of its responsibilities for new work in the IETF and IRTF.
The board discussed the need for transparency when responding to proposed charters for new work in the IETF. In general, it is best for IAB members to provide feedback during the public comment period. The board also discussed IAB member participation in BOFs. Typically IAB members participate as individuals in BOFs, and are not speaking on behalf of the IAB when they come to the microphone. However, some BOF participants may not understand this.
Olaf pointed out that while board members may participate in BOF sessions as individuals, there may be cases where it is reasonable for board members at the microphone to say that they have a question and will be reporting back to the IAB on the answer.
There was a brief discussion on BOF reports and BOF shepherds. Russ explained that the IESG appreciates BOF reviews from the IAB that include an analysis of the BOF, as those provide a different perspective. IAB BOF shepherds may be useful both as guides to the community members trying to navigate the IETF process for starting new work, and as proponents of the proposed new work itself. Spencer agreed to work on further clarifying the IAB BOF participant and shepherd roles.
5. IANA Evolution Program
Olaf reported that the IANA Evolution Program acts as the IAB think tank on strategic and liaison issues relating to the IANA functions. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is producing a statement of work (SOW) for the IANA functions, and will issue a second notice of inquiry (NOI). The IAB is tasked with responding to the NOI, which is expected to be released sometime in late June, and ensuring that the SOW reflects the IETF’s needs.
Olaf also reported on the ARIN 2011-05 proposal to allocate a /10 for transition purposes. If this proposal is submitted to the ARIN AC, the IAB will probably be asked by the ARIN Board to provide feedback. Because this issue may become time-sensitive, the IANA Evolution Program will work to draft a timely response.
6. RFC Editor Program
Joel gave a brief overview of the RFC Editor Program, which consists of the Acting RFC Series Editor (RSE) and the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC), and is responsible for updating RFC 5620. The current draft for the update to RFC 5620 is draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2. Joel asked the board to review the draft and provide comments by 1 June 2011; the IAOC will also be providing comments by this date.
Joel reported that the RSOC is determining how to conduct the search for a new RSE, and that the RSOC is considering engaging an outside search firm to assist with the search.
7. HTTP/Web Evolution Initiative
The board discussed IETF work that is mirrored by current W3C activities. The board is planning to meet with the W3C TAG for further discussion on 7 June 2011.
8. IETF 81 Plenary Discussion
Alissa reported on the current plans for the IETF 81 plenary on “The Web Privacy Tussle.” The plan is to have the first speaker give a broad overview of the topic, and then have three respondents who will give the perspectives from the regulator, browser vendor, and the web apps/analytics/data collector sides. Alissa plans to start inviting potential speakers now with hopes of finalizing the slate by the time the preliminary IETF 81 agenda is published on 23 June 2011.
9. SDO Coordination: Working Relationships
The board discussed ways to be more strategic in managing liaison relationships. The IESG inquired about replacing liaison managers who are sitting Area Directors and Working Group Chairs (when the WG relates to the liaison). Spencer agreed to draft a response to the IESG which will include an analysis of the issue and a recommendation for the IAB.
The board further discussed the role of liaison managers, and agreed that in several cases, the current level of communication with the liaison managers could be improved.
The board discussed which existing liaison relationships should be considered high-priority, and concluded that efforts should focus on 3GPP, IEEE 802.1, ITU-T and W3C.
The board discussed the current liaison relationship with the ITU-T, and agreed that the ultimate goal was to have a cooperative, respectful relationship between the IETF and the ITU-T. The SDO Coordination team will discuss next steps at IETF 81 in Quebec City.
10. Interaction with Governments
The board discussed the IETF’s current principles for interactions with governments. The current IAB statement on liaisons to national governments [http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2003/2003-06-10-national-liaisons/]
reads, in part:
The IETF is an international body, and as such, does not generally provide or accept liaisons with non-international organizations or for non-international purposes. From time to time, it may be advantageous for the IETF to provide or accept a liaison a non-international organization… for the purposes of information exchange.
The board agreed that this statement was a good guiding principle.
To date, IAB/IETF interactions with governments have generally been to:
- Explain IETF and its positions
- Defend the IETF
- Respond to government requests
- Actively solicit operational or policy requirements
- Increase IETF participation from government stakeholders
- Obtain recognition of the IETF as an SDO
Alissa pointed out that there have been cases where there have been problems getting the IETF recognized as an SDO, even within the United States. The board discussed ways to encourage the recognition of the IETF as an SDO. Olaf agreed to investigate the current status of getting the IETF recognized as an SDO by the European Union (EU). The board agreed to come up with a list of organizations by which it would be desirable for the IETF to be recognized as an SDO, and to discuss this further at a future meeting.
11. The IAB and ISOC: Better Together
The board discussed the relationship between the IAB and ISOC in order to identify the key areas for cooperation. Potential areas for cooperation include liaisons with international standards bodies, discussions with national governments, recognition by national governments, ISOC & IAB technical programs, and architectural oversight. The board discussed ways to increase the communications between the IAB and ISOC, including having more people from ISOC participating in the Programs and Initiatives.
Lynn agreed to come back to the board with a list of work areas where it would be useful to have more ISOC involvement, and to organize a conference call between the IAB and ISOC before IETF 81.
12. DNS Initiative
Jon presented on the current status of draft-iab-dns-applications. Work on this document originated from discussions at the E2MD (“E. 164 to Metadata”) BOF at IETF 77.
Overall, feedback from the IETF community on the document has been negative. The most recent negative feedback (post IETF-80) has argued that the draft misunderstands the history and purpose of the DNS.
The board discussed the intended purpose of draft-iab-dns-applications, and whether the document could acknowledge split-horizon DNS without appearing to endorse it.
There was a brief discussion about whether the DNS Initiative should be expanded beyond work on draft-iab-dns-applications; the board agreed that there are a number of DNS issues that may require more attention, and that they would benefit from more participation from outside the IAB. The board also discussed appointment of potential additional members to the DNS initiative.
13. IP Evolution Initiative
Danny reported that he is processing the feedback on draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications, and that a new revision should be available prior to IETF 81.
Dave Thaler reported that he is working on a document on canonicalization of identifiers in a security context, but the document is still at an early stage.
14. Return to Program Framework
The board discussed the framework of the Programs and Initiatives, and whether any changes should be made in light of the discussions at the IAB retreat. The board agreed that Program and Initiative Leads should report to the IAB quarterly, and that those reports should be made public as part of the IAB minutes. After further discussion, the board also agreed that the minutes of the RSOC should also be made public; Joel will coordinate with Fred Baker on this.
15. Review of meeting
The board discussed adding extra teleconferences to accommodate the large number of P0 items expected in the coming months, and agreed to meet weekly through IETF 81.
Spencer pointed out that the IAB job description for the NomCom will need to be updated to include more information about the Programs and Initiatives; the revised description will be due sometime in August. The board selected Dave Thaler as the IAB Liaison to the NomCom for 2011-2012.
Cindy briefly reviewed all of the action items that came out of this meeting; the action item list on the IAB wiki will be updated shortly.