Minutes of the 2011-07-28 IAB Meeting, Quebec City, Canada
- Bernard Aboba (IAB Chair)
- Alissa Cooper
- Spencer Dawkins
- Lars Eggert (IRTF Chair)
- Mat Ford, ISOC (ISOC Liaison)
- Joel Halpern
- Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
- Olaf Kolkman
- Danny McPherson
- Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Assistant)
- Jon Peterson
- Andrei Robachevsky
- Dave Thaler
- Hannes Tschofenig
- Sean Turner (IESG Liaison)
- Ross Callon
- David Kessens
- Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)
- David McGrew (CFRG Chair)
- Lynn St. Amour (ISOC)
2. IRTF Review: Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG)
David McGrew, chair of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) [http://irtf.org/cfrg], gave a brief overview of the research group’s activities. Future goals for the RG include adding a second chair, holding a face-to-face meeting at an IETF, and reaching out to academia at an International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR) conference [http://www.iacr.org/conferences/]. There is interest in drawing in more participants to work on global cryptography.
David McGrew asked the board to think about ways to make the CFRG’s input to the IETF more constructive. Historically, the Security Area Directors have used the CFRG for cryptography reviews, in conjunction with the Security Directorate reviews.
3. Discussion of IRTF Issues
Lars reported that IRSG met with with Scott Bradner and Jorge Contreras to discuss whether the IETF Note Well applies to the IRTF, and concluded that it does indeed apply. The IRSG is working on an IRTF IPR Statement, and this will be discussed further at the IRTF Open Meeting at IETF 82 in Taipei.
Lars reported that he is reviewing several proposals for new research groups, and is working to come up with guidance for efforts trying to move themselves under the IRTF umbrella.
The winners of the first Applied Networking Research Prize spoke at the IRTF Open Meeting. The current plan is to award another prize for IETF 82 in Taipei, and then move into a yearly nomination cycle.
4. Minutes Review & Approval
The board approved the minutes of the 6 July 2011 and 13 July 2011 business meetings.
5. IANA FNOI
The board reviewed the current draft of the IANA FNOI. The board unanimously approved the IANA FNOI response pending edits to the text to be made by Olaf.
6. ICANN Nomcom appointment
The discussion of the ICANN Nomcom appointment was deferred due to time constraints.
7. ITU-T MPLS liaison appointment
Andrei reported that interviews for the ITU-T MPLS Liaison Manager appointment are in progress, and that the ITU-T Coordination Program hopes to have a recommendation for the board soon.
8. IGF Open Forum on Internet Standards
Andrei reported that there is an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) planned in Nairobi for the end of September
[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/nairobipreparatory], where ISOC is organizing a 90-minute session to promote the IETF. Andrei asked the board to send potential topics and speaker names to him.
9. RFC Editor Model v2
Joel asked the board to review the comments received on draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2 and help resolve the open issues.
Joel reported that the RSOC has received several viable candidates for the RFC Series Editor position. Interviews will begin soon, with the goal to have the new RSE transitioned and in place by the end of the year.
10. Other Business
The board agreed that the next IAB teleconference will be held on 10 August 2011.
Appendix 1: IESG Liaison Report for July 2011
–Begin IESG Liaison written report–
July 19, 2011 ================ SDO Coordination - The formal liaison response to ITU-T SG17 IPv6 security work items liaison was returned on 2011-06-26 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1059/). - The Internet Area submitted a liaison to ITU SG-15 announcing the possible formation of the HOMENET WG on 2011-07-01 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1066/). - The Internet Area organized a reply to the ITU-T Q5/SG-11 liaison requesting review of the most recent revision of the draft Q.Flowstatesig recommendation (see https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=56667). The ITU-T liaison has seen the draft reply and the formal review is scheduled for July 24th. - The MPLS WG liaised with ITU-T SG15, Q9, Q10, Q12 and Q14 to let them know the comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management- overview-04.txt have been received and will be processed on 2011-07-08 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1067/). - IETF/W3C Coordination telecon was held 2011-07-18. Minutes have not been posted yet. ================ Working Groups Recharters - Kerberos (krb-wg) - Common Authentication Technology Next Generation (kitten) - Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) - Network Configuration (netconf) New - Home Networking (homenet) Interim Meetings - Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings (precis) 2011-07-06.
–End IESG Liaison written report–
Appendix 2: RFC Editor Liaison Written Report for July 2011
–Begin RFC Editor Liaison written report–
20 July 2011 == RFC Production The RFC Editor Queue Summary of: 2011/07/18 State total # total # Median Wks Average Wks docs pages in state in state EDIT 19 680 2.6 2.6 RFC-EDIT 13 296 1.4 1.4 AUTH48 26 1069 1.6 2.9 MISSREF 48 1536 21.4 33.8 AUTH 1 19 0.9 0.9 ISR 21 609 31.0 45.6 TO 3 311 4.9 5.5 ISR-AUTH 18 522 18.2 33.9 IESG 1 21 109.8 109.8 IANA 3 34 1.6 1.5 Totals: 153 docs 5097 pages Qualitative observations: * The time that documents remain in RFC Editor controlled states is relatively low. * The total number of documents that are in the queue is going down. The total number of publications in 2011 (to date) is 237. Which is 50 publications short of the total number of publications in 2009. == RFC Signing project. After a short discussion on RFC interest about signing RFCs using RFC5485-like technology I gave a thumbs up. My takeaway from the discussion is that while the applicability to subpoenas (one of the motivations the IETF chair brought forward) is a matter of debate there is nobody strenuously objecting to going forward. Since there is no real harm in signing, and the costs of the implementation is minimal (configuration modification of the I-D signing script). We go ahead with the implementation on the premisses that the permanent RSE may revert this decision if it turns out that the costs outweigh the benefits. == Style issue(s) There is one issue that may need ARSE escalation. The RFC Editor has had a number of issues with how authors are acknowledged in headers and the documents. The policy that we follow is a 1:1:1 mapping, paraphrased: - The authors in the header, are the authors in the authors section, are the authors that need to sign of during Auth 48. - If there are more authors than those that fit in the header (less than 5, with an occasional exception) then those authors can move to a Contributors section. The policy brings some contention in recent and forthcoming publications. We are planning to bring this up with the IESG during the Sunday morning breakfast. == Minor planning There will be RFC Editor office hours during the IETF, at the usual table. The ARSE is on-call for discussing issues. Finally. The production center has my cell phone number and we agreed on a protocol during my August vacation.
–End RFC Editor Liaison written report–