Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2011-02-09

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2011»IAB Minutes 2011-02-09

IAB Teleconference


1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, administrivia, approval of minutes

1.1. Attendance

Bernard Aboba
Ron Bonica (IESG liaison to the IAB)
Ross Callon
Alissa Cooper (incoming IAB)
Spencer Dawkins
Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)
Joel Halpern (incoming IAB)

p Russ Housley (IETF Chair)

John Klensin
Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)

p Glenn Kowack (RFC Editor Liaison)

Jon Peterson
Lynn St.Amour (ISOC Liaison)
Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
Dave Thaler
Hannes Tschofenig
Vittal Krishnamurthy (IAB Scribe)
p – participated in part of the meeting.
Marcelo Bagnulo
David Kessens (incoming IAB)
Danny McPherson
Andrei Robachevsky

1.2. Agenda

No agenda items were added.

1.3. Administrivia

Two administrative items were mentioned:

– incoming IAB members have been added to and IAB wiki – outgoing members begin working with incoming members to transfer

liaison shepherd responsibilities.

While talking about the new members and their “ramp-up”, Olaf explained that the new members would be mentored by current members of the IAB. He also noted that Spencer had volunteered to be a mentor, and asked again if anyone else wanted to volunteer. Hannes said that he could volunteer, but that both he and Spencer were pretty new to IAB themselves. He added that he himself would like some mentoring, at least regarding the working of IAB and ways to improve it.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

Two items were up for review:

– IETF 79 Plenary Transcript: Dow requested the IAB to review the transcript, and to check the names of the people for the Q&A session.
– One set of meeting minutes, which would be sent for review shortly.

2. Welcome and Introduction of New IAB Members

Olaf welcomed the newest IAB members Joel and Alissa, and requested they introduce themselves to the rest of the board. Olaf told the new members that he would not only like them to familiarize themselves with the decisions made by previous members, but also to question them. He said that their fresh insights and clarification questions were most welcome. For the benefit of the new members, Olaf explained the schedule during the IETF week: decisions are made by the old IAB until the IETF week. During that week the IAB works on a double-scheme, and at the end of the week the new IAB takes over. The new members were requested to browse the internal wiki, which contains background information on IAB processes and ongoing work.

David Kessens is also joining the board in March, but was unable to participate in this call due to a schedule conflict.

3. I* Meeting Report

Olaf gave the board some context for the recent I* meeting, which took place Feb 3-4 in Miami, FL. The goal of the meeting was to bring together the ICANN CEO, ISOC CEO, IETF and IAB Chairs, and the CEOs of the RIRs. One event that transpired simultaneously with the meeting was that the last of the 5 /8 IPv4 addresses were allocated to the RIRs, so this event involved a small ceremony and some press coverage.

At the meeting they discussed establishing a global policy for how to handle IPv4 address blocks that are returned to IANA. There was also a discussion of the RPKI, focused primarily on how IANA would implement it. Most participants felt that it wouldn’t make sense to include additional tasks under the DoC contract, and that reducing the role of the DoC in IANA over time was preferred. No specific agreements were made at the meeting, however.

The group discussed the interactions of IANA with the other organizations that define and use various registries, and then took a first look at the framework description draft that was developed by the IAB and others. Olaf believes that the VP of IANA and the five RIR CEOs are largely in sync regarding goals and next steps. Lynn agreed that Rod Beckstrom and the ICANN leadership understand the job of IANA, the importance of the IETF and IAB roles, and have a good understanding of how the IAB and IETF operate, as well as an appreciation of the work and responsibilities of these groups.

Olaf reported that the RIRs and the NRO look forward to further cooperation with the IAB. He felt that the RIRs want the IAB to be concrete. For example, the RIRs support the IANA as the trust anchor for the RPKI, and the look for the IAB to provide advice to IANA. Lynn reported that the participants are jointly working on a public statement about the meeting.

4. IETF 80 Plenary Update

Jon updated the board on the plenary status. He said that two speakers were on board – Harold and Jonathan – and that W3C will also send someone, probably Larry Miscinter. There will be a BoF as well on the topic of Web-based RTC. Hannes mentioned that it is important for the IAB was to see where the standardization is going. Olaf said there was a need to identify areas where standardization will be less important so as to focus on the right areas. He added that it is important to narrow down the goals of the plenary and record them, so that the IAB can introduce the session to the community.

Hannes pictured 3 goals:

1. Figure out what was going on in this standardization space and where it is heading, and inform the community
2. Look at specifically RTP in web (RIA area)
3. Consider / raise implications to the larger IETF process

Dave Thaler asked whether there were any plans to acknowledge IANA IPv4 exhaustion at the plenary. Olaf replied that there weren’t any at present, but requested members to brainstorm on a suitable way to celebrate this event.

5. IETF 81 Plenary Topic

Olaf inquired whether members had an agenda topic for the IETF 81. Hannes suggested the Internet / Web Privacy work as the topic, and said that he and Alissa were working on Do-Not-Track. They expect to have a document explaining the terminology soon. There was general support among the board for this plenary topic. Olaf once again emphasized that the IAB needs to set a clear goal as to what it wants to get out of the plenary, and that it would be most helpful if these goals were written down soon.

6. ITU-T Liaison Appointment

Andrei had sent the ITU-T Liaison job description to the IAB list, along with a short list of candidates. There was a little discussion about the potential trade-offs in the selection, but the IAB didn’t discuss the actual job description text or specific candidates at this time.

Ross stated he was happy with the candidate list that Andrei had sent. He had asked around and found that people active in ITU are happy with the list as well. A discussion of the candidates was directed to the confidential iab-vote mailing list. Olaf suggested subscribing new members to that list at this time; there were no objections.

7. ISOC BoT Appointment

Olaf summarized the process for the ISOC Board of Trustees (BoT) appointment. The old IAB will manage this process, will get input and community comments. The new IAB will make the decision during the IETF week. The process is been described on the IAB wiki.

8. RFC Editor Update

Glenn mentioned the work list for between today and the end of Feb. He will be documenting a lot of things over the next few weeks, including the job description. After his tenure, he will provide ongoing light-level support,and he plans to participate in the Prague IETF to ensure smooth transition. He also said that RFC Editor job operates pretty smoothly day-to-day. An update on the status and plans will go to the rfc-interest list shortly.

Olaf said that he was looking for an editor for 5620bis. Joel agreed to take this up, and there was agreement that this could be conveyed to the community. Also, the board will need to assign a primary POC to handle RSE issues in the interim, until a new RSE is hired. John and Olaf have both expressed a willingness to take on this role; they will coordinate offline to determine the POC.

9. Smart Objects Workshop

Hannes gave a brief update on the Smart Objects Workshop. The submission deadline is fast approaching. So far they have received a large number of position papers.

For the Saturday tutorial session, a few people thought it would be useful to talk about service discovery. Stuart Cheshire agreed to talk about this for an hour. At present there are more than 80 people who have signed up for the tutorial. Spencer will be helping with workshop guidelines

Hannes added that once the position papers were in he would review them as quickly as possible to send out invitations. He requested Dow help set up a pre-workshop discussion list.

10. Action Item Review and Programs Status

10.1. Privacy Program

Bernard has posted the meeting minutes; the next step is to start on the draft of the workshop report. Hannes mentioned that he would like to have a bar BOF on the Do Not Track topic because there is a lot of interest with the FCC report. Browser vendors writing their own implementations already. Alissa has asked the authors to submit IDs, and there may be some future standardization of new HTTP headers to handle this. He added that the W3C is obviously super-interested in this topic.

10.2. Internationalization Program

Dave reported that the IDN encoding remains in AUTH48. John and Dave have both signed off, and are now waiting for Stuart.

Also, the canonicalization topic was put into the program. He reminded the board that the taxonomy of different types of identifiers was discussed at a previous IETF dinner. The PRECIS working group has also had a few conference calls, and there is ongoing work to categorize the existing RFCs and document those on the WG wiki page. The next step is for Dave to write a document that summarizes the progress so far. Also, John and Paul Hoffman are writing a document that updates the terminology in this topic area.

Editor’s note: This document is now posted as:


10.3. IANA Evolution Program

Andrei and Marcelo have been leading this effort, and both were absent from the call due to schedule conflicts. Olaf summarized that most of the context was covered in the discussion of the I* meeting. They are still trying to better define the language.

There was also a short discussion about the meeting with Thomas to review the liaison job.

10.4. SDO Coordination Program

No change in status.

10.5. IPv6 for IAB Business

No change in status.

10.6. Evaluate Mapping of IAB Website and IAB Communication Processes

Olaf said that after the migration to the new website the current site will close down. He is working with Vittal, who he is in the process of transferring content to the new site. Olaf stated the goal of bringing the new site online by the Prague IETF, and Vittal said he would shoot for that target.

11. Document Status

11.1. IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationalized Domain Names

See agenda item 10.2 above.

11.2. Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions

Bernard said that he had an update that addresses all open issues and asked the members of IAB review.

11.3. Evolution of the IP Model

Dave addressed the comments received during IETF call for comments and posted the resolutions to the IAB list. Bernard said that he would send text about the issues that arose during the browser discussions. Dave and Bernard agreed to discuss this area further after the meeting.

11.4. IAB IANA Draft

No change in status – update still pending.

11.5. Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast

Dave said that he is waiting for Danny to incorporate the last round of feedback. Bernard mentioned that the document has been in an undefined state for a while and needs to be updated.

11.6. Architectural Considerations on Application Features in the DNS

This was sent out as an IAB draft, and a number of people replied with comments. A new version is available in the repository. Dave volunteered to review the new version.

11.7. Privacy Terminology

Hannes met with Markus Hansen during the week, and they discussed the feedback they had gotten on the draft. Based on that feedback, they expect to substantially modify the doc and shorten the terminology, after which he will see if it can be taken up as an IAB item.

The reason for the modification is that some of the material was obvious to IETF people, but there are other items that are described in a different style – directed more to a research audience. These need to be simplified and modified by providing suitable examples.