1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, administrivia, approval of minutes [10 min]
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)
Ron Bonica (IESG liaison to the IAB)
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Glenn Kowack (RFC Editor Liaison)
Vittal Krishnamurthy (IAB Scribe)
Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)
At present the main iab mailing list is an explicit cc on certain messages posted to the ietf-announce mailing list – in particular, Protocol Action and Document Action messages. After a short discussion, it was agree to halt this explicit cc, since most members are either subscribed to ietf-announce already or have other methods for tracking work of interest.
At their retreat last year the IAB had met with Chonnikarn (Fern) Jira, a graduate student at the Harvard Business School who is studying leadership election in organizations like the IETF. Fern recently completed a paper on the topic; Olaf asked the IAB to provide any feedback to Fern directly.
Dow asked the IAB to review the action item list on the wiki and update any items that had been completed or overcome by events, and then reminded the board of the upcoming IETF 80 BOF call with the IESG.
1.4. Meeting Minutes
Dow reported that there are a few sets of minutes currently under review, including the full (cleaned up) transcript from the IETF 79 technical plenary. He asked the board to read them and provide any comments. Spencer stated that the board will have a turnover of members in Prague, and it was agreed that the remaining minutes really needed to be completed and approved before then. He reasoned that new members would be reading the minutes as part of their preparation to join the IAB.
2. Liaison Reports
2.1. ISOC Liaison Report
Lynn was not on the call due to a schedule conflict, but she had sent a written report to the IAB. Olaf said the one of the items in the report was the note about IPv6, and that he would ask Lynn about any ISOC announcement related to IPv4 exhaustion.
<begin ISOC Liaison written report>
ISOC’s Liaison Report to the IAB
January 26, 2011
I. World IPv6 Day
II. UN Consultations on Enhanced Cooperation
III. UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development Working Group on Internet Governance
V. 2011 G8/G20 Meetings
I. World IPv6 Day — http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/ – submitted by Leslie Daigle
ISOC announced and is coordinating “World IPv6 Day,” set for June 8 2011. Initial participants Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, Akamai and Limelight Networks will be amongst some of the major organisations that will offer their content over IPv6 for a 24-hour “test drive”. The goal of the Test Drive Day is to motivate organizations across the industry – Internet service providers, hardware makers, operating system vendors and web companies – to prepare their services for IPv6 to ensure a successful transition as IPv4 addresses run out. Reactions have been quite positive, and we’re collecting more participation and working on ensuring that there is awareness and involvement from around the globe. A chief goal is to have the opportunity to test-drive IPv6 (and see what does/not break) under load. However, early responses suggest that a lot of organizations are using this as a constructive forcing-function to ensure that they are accessible over IPv6, and that their systems are capable, by the date.
II. UN Consultations on Enhanced Cooperation – submitted by Bill Graham
Bill Graham attended an open consultation on “enhanced cooperation” on Internet governance, held at the UN in New York on December 14. The consultation is intended as a partial response to WSIS text from 2005. As agreed, Bill spoke on behalf of both the Internet Society and IETF, stressing it is important for governments and intergovernmental organizations to recognize the many existing expert organizations with well established and open processes already dealing with Internet issues, which welcome all who want to participate. The message was echoed by several other organizations (ICANN, NRO) and by civil society speakers, as well as several governments. That was likely the last consultation on the topic. The UN Under-Secretary General is expected to produce recommendations for intergovernmental action sometime in the next few months.
III. UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development Working Group on Internet Governance – submitted by Bill Graham
The name of this group is somewhat misleading. Its mandate is to recommend possible improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, which the UN General Assembly has now agreed to continue for five years. The initial proposal was for it to be a government-only group, but after nearly 20 organizations wrote to the CSTD in protest, and more than 3000 people signed an on-line petition organized by ISOC, the CSTD Chair has invited representatives from business, technical, academic, civil society and intergovernmental agencies to participate, though not as members. The group will meet in February and March to prepare a report for the CSTD meeting in May, and ultimately for the General Assembly to consider at year- end.
IV. OECD – submitted by Bill Graham
A “High Level meeting on the Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth” is being organized on 28-29 June, 2011, in Paris. This meeting is a follow-up to the 2008 Ministerial conference on the Future of the Internet Economy. The objective of the meeting is to examine policies to advance broadband deployment and access, policy goals to strengthen growth, as well as principles for Internet policymaking. Several ministers have already confirmed their participation and the OECD is expecting some media coverage for the event. ISOC has begun to recruit appropriate level speakers. Vint Cerf has agreed in principle to attend.
V. 2011 G8/G20 Meetings – submitted by Bill Graham
France will host the annual meetings of the G8 and G20 this year. President Sarkozy has announced several themes, one of which is: Confidence in the Internet economy. This will cover Internet-based innovation, the protection of intellectual property rights and the protection of users’ Privacy (France would like to promote “the right to be forgotten” which they already promoted at IGF 2009). ISOC has met with the key organizers, and expects to be able to work with the organizing committee, through a stakeholders advisory committee. The Presidential Advisor for UN and G8 issues also confirmed President Sarkozy’s intention to organize a high-level meeting with the “leaders of the Internet” the day before the summit, on 25 May in Paris (or Deauville). ISOC has said we would be willing to recruit high-level speakers and experts, and that it was critical that the Internet technical community be represented at this meeting.
<end ISOC Liaison written report>
2.2. IESG Liaison
Ron elaborated on his written report, summarizing the two different liaison statements to the ITU-T regarding MPLS.
<begin IESG Liaison written report>
The MPLS WG sent the following liaison statements to the ITU_T:
<end IESG Liaison written report>
2.3. RFC Editor Liaison
Glenn stated that he was very happy with the achievements of 2010, which saw the second-highest number of RFCs published in one year in the history of the IETF. He also mentioned that there was a good, high quality discussion taking place regarding the revision to the RFC Editor model and the role of the RFC Series Editor (RSE), and that he was hopeful a consensus would be reached soon. He did note, however, that the number of active participants in this discussion is somewhat low. He further reported that the RFC citations committee has produced a draft that will be published in a few weeks. This draft would, at a minimum, make some interpretations concerning RFC 2026bis, and he requested the IAB and the RSAG to review it.
<begin RFC Editor Liaison written report>
RFC Editor Report to the IAB
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
RFC Editor Operations
Subs – 369
Pubs – 363 (2nd highest total in series history)
January 2011 Statistics (partial / year to date, as of 25 January)
November through January was slow for publications compared to historical monthly averages. However, it is typical for this time of year. This is attributable primarily to the holiday season, with reduced author availability and reduced staff time due to the holidays.
The anticipated increase in document submissions prior to IESG turnover has started (39 already this month with a few more days remaining). Rebecca van Rheenen, an additional part-time editor, was hired in early December in anticipation of this increase.
Congratulations to the RFC Production Center team are in order for a solid performance during 2010, a transitional year with great numbers in any year.
TRSE Activities This Period
This period has consisted largely of participating in rfc-interest mail list discussions, and advising the IAB on the recommendations and next steps. The improvement in list discussion quality that began in December continued and progressed in January, focusing on the actual content of the recommendations. The number of participants on the list remains small. It is notable that several of the participants put in significant efforts to make extensive analyses of the recommendations and discussions, which helped us move closer to a consensus.
RFC Citations RSE Committee
The RFC Citations RSE Committee, chaired by Craig Partridge, has produced an internal draft. Active discussions are underway, and I hope to see public announcement within a few weeks. We are reviewing the draft within the RFC Editor, and I don’t anticipate any significant issues since Sandy Ginoza is a member of the committee.
This is the first RFC Series Editor committee, and each action has the potential to set precedent. I am in discussion with Craig and Brian about next steps once the committee has agreed on its recommendations. I would like to see some level of both RSAG and community review. The latter is especially important because the committee’s recommendations may contain a new interpretation of RFC 2026 w/r/t citation (or not) of Internet drafts in RFCs. I hope this will be a useful test case for and example of community participation in RFC Editor policy-making prior to hiring the new RSE (you will recall that committee members are drawn from the RSAG and community volunteers). It is not yet clear if there will be sufficient outstanding issues to motivate formation of a follow-on committee.
<end RFC Editor Liaison written report>
2.4. IRTF Chair
Aaron reported that there were no major issues to discuss. He said that there are a few IRTF stream documents under review, and that he and Lars Eggert have been talking on a regular basis. Lars will be taking over as IRTF chair shortly.
<no IRTF Chair written report was submitted>
3. I* Chairs Meeting
Olaf had forwarded to the IAB the agenda of the upcoming I* chairs meeting, and briefly explained the goals of the session. The primary purpose is to find commonalities, common objectives and areas where the various I* organizations can cooperate (i.e. IAB, IETF, ISOC, IANA, ICANN, Regional Registrars). The meeting will also be used for some team building.
He then noted that coinciding with the meeting the last blocks of IPv4 address space will be allocated by IANA to the registrars, and so that topic will also be discussed. Dave Thaler asked if any of the organizations would be making press statements about the IPv4 exhaustion, and Olaf said that he expected some press statements media coverage. Dow asked whether the IAB was taking an additional participant (beyond Olaf), and Olaf stated that just he and Russ will be there for the IETF and IAB. However, ISOC is likely to bring in Leslie Daigle and Bill Graham, and Elise will participate for IANA, so there will be expertise covering the various technical topics.
4. IETF 80 – Rough Schedule
Olaf had posted the rough IAB schedule for IETF 80 a few days earlier, and the board spent a few minutes discussing the planned events. Hannes gave an update on the Monday plenary session; the W3C will be sending a panelist, most likely Larry Masinter.
5. Smart Objects Workshop
Hannes summarized the preparations for the Smart Objects workshop, which will take place on Friday before the IETF. It is being co-organized with the Internet Area (Jari). He stated that Dow had updated the webpage with pointers to the workshop material, and that there had been a strong response to the tutorial sessions planned for Saturday.
Hannes then raised the question of IPR policy at IAB-hosted workshops. He has discussed the issue with Jorge and Scott, and the IAB will need to decide on an approach going forward. He added that the Note Well will not be applied this time because some position papers started arriving before the Note Well rules were clarified. Right now there are nearly 60 participants expected for the workshop. Olaf suggested that the application of IPR rules and the Note Well are really tied to the goals of a particular workshop; if the goal is to bring work back into the IETF, then the IAB needs to apply the Note Well early in workshop planning. He asked Hannes to draft a recommendation for the IAB on an IPR policy going forward, one that could be mapped to the goals of each workshop.
Hannes also discussed at length the need for greater coordination between the IETF and W3C to resolve apparent overlapping work areas. Bernard added that in the Real-time area there is a large percentage of W3C work that overlaps with the IETF. Olaf suggested a W3C focus on profiles and APIs while the IETF focuses on protocols. The board agreed to return to a more detailed discussion of this topic at a later date.
6. RFC Editor Discussion
The board then entered into a long discussion about the update to the RFC Editor Model. Olaf again stressed that whenever IAB members uncover new questions or ideas related to the model (and any potential alternatives), they need to raise them on the rfc- interest mailing list for consideration by the community. He stressed the importance of keeping the dialogue transparent, even though in the end the IAB will have to make the final decision. He added that there was some consensus emerging on the major elements of the model, but that more work needs to be done on the job description, statements of work, and facilitating a smooth transition to the next Series Editor. Given the tight timeline, it was agreed to try and list the remaining items, and then resolve those in the critical path first. One question that has had a lot of discussion is the nature of the RSE, particularly the level of management authority the role would have. Olaf agreed to circulate a document on the job role, and requested board members to provide feedback. The IAB then moved into an Executive Session.
At this point in the meeting liaisons and scribes dropped from the call.
7. RFC Editor Discussion (cont.)
The board continued their discussion of changes to the RFC Editor Model, and the closeout of the TRSE contract. Progress was made on identifying next steps and framing the closeout tasks of the TRSE contract. The board will inform Glenn and the larger community in short order.