Minutes of the 2012-08-15 IAB Teleconference (Business Meeting)

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

1.1. Attendance

PRESENT

• Bernard Aboba (IAB Chair)
• Mary Barnes (IAB Executive Director)
• Marc Blanchet
• Ross Callon
• Alissa Cooper
• Spencer Dawkins
• Joel Halpern
• David Kessens
• Danny McPherson
• Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Assistant)
• Robert Sparks (IESG Liaison)
• Dave Thaler
• Hannes Tschofenig

APOLOGIES

• Jari Arkko
• Lars Eggert (IRTF Chair)
• Mat Ford (ISOC Liaison)
• Russ Housley (IETF Chair)
• Jon Peterson

1.2. Agenda

No agenda items were added.

1.3. Administrivia

Several items from the internal action item list were reviewed.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

The minutes of the 18 July 2012 business meeting were approved. The minutes of the IETF 84 Technical Plenary and the 29 July 2012, 31 July 2012 and 2 August 2012 business meetings remain under review.

2. Upcoming Business Meeting & Tech Chat Schedule

Hannes reported that Sean Turner is available for a tech chat on passwords on 29 August 2012. Bernard suggested a future tech chat topic on internet filtering, and agreed to follow up to find a speaker, potentially from the ISOC.

3. Program Meeting Summaries from IETF 84

3.1. Privacy Program

–Begin Privacy Program Report, Alissa Cooper–

F2F participants: Jon Peterson, Rhys Smith, Alissa Cooper
Remote participants: Christine Runnegar, Nick Doty

1. draft-iab-privacy-considerations

We discussed the feedback received on draft-iab-privacy-considerations
from Stephen Farrell, Cullen Jennings, Ted Hardie, and Eric Rescorla.
Among the changes suggested by these reviewers, only two were major:
(1) making sections 5 and 6 into their own document, and (2) changing
from a threats/mitigations model to a privacy-friendly/unfriendly
model for discussing the impact of protocol design decisions on
privacy. The group decided against making both of these changes given
that the existing document structure has already been through massive
changes and that we don't want to water down the import that the
threats/mitigations model implies.

We discussed several smaller changes that have been suggested. Alissa
took an action to address these. Rhys will also be doing a review of
the document.

We will ask for IAB last call on the next version of the document.

2.  Privacy tutorial

Rhys took an action to develop an outline of a privacy tutorial that
could be given on an upcoming IETF Sunday.

3. Using draft-iab-privacy-considerations

Rhys will be applying the guidance in draft-iab-privacy-considerations
as he re-works the ABFAB architecture document. We all agreed to keep
an eye out for new I-Ds in the pipeline where we could promote using
the guidance to do early privacy reviews.

–End Privacy Program Report–

3.2. Emergency Services Program

–Begin Emergency Services Program Report, Hannes Tschofenig–

I wanted to provide a very brief summary of the discussions we had
last week in the ES program meeting

Richard, Roger, Brian, Alissa, and myself met to discuss two topics:

I) M493 activities

We discussed the ongoing activities and my draft submission to the
ECRIT working group. I also provided a bit of background on the
ongoing restructuring of ETSI and the formation of the E2NA body. We
agreed that a liaison message to the M493 group would be useful. We
talked about the pros and cons of sending it from the IAB vs. from the
ECRIT working group. We thought that a liaison letter from the IAB
would give a better impression. Richard volunteered to be the liaison
contact point from ECRIT.

The content of the liaison would essentially be that we are working on
this topic in ECRIT and we are interested to receive their
requirements to take them into consideration in our solution work
(which is a chartered ECRIT working group item).

As a timeframe we thought it would be good to get the liaison to the
M493 group before their next face-to-face meeting.

II) Richard told us about unpublished work in the area of location
services that he had been doing recently. In this research Richard got
hold of location data collected by a third party location provider
(which included location measurements from WiFi and cellular networks
as well as GPS data). He used that data as input to different
location-based services (from Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.). He then
compared the resulting responses from those location services with the
GPS data he had. This allowed him to illustrate the quality of
location based services offered by third party providers.

Richard promised to make the results available to us as soon as
possible. This was very interesting data I would like to mention in
discussions.

–End Emergency Services Program Report–

3.3. Internationalization Program

–Begin Internationalization Program Report, Dave Thaler–

All program members attended except Patrik Fältström, who was not in
Vancouver.  Also per prior agreement of the IAB, Lars-Johan Liman was
recently added to the program.

1) The main item discussed was a potential IAB workshop on i18n.
Dave noted that the W3C is also organizing a workshop on IDN for
sometime this fall (see slides for their stated scope).   Dave has
been in contact with the organizer, Richard Ishida, and the program
discussed whether and to what extent to combine efforts with the
W3C workshop, which depends on the intended scope of a potential
IAB workshop.   The discussion of scope concluded with the program
agreeing that a workshop would be useful to focus around i18n
issues more generally, not specifically in the context of IDN, and
thus it best separate from and not at the same time/place as, the
W3C’s.  For example, a potential IAB workshop could focus on use of
UTF-8 in protocols, normalization, versioning, punctuation, etc.
(this list was proposed by Patrik beforehand).   John Klensin took
the action item to work with Patrik on writing up a proposed scope
summary.   It was also agreed that the appropriate size for such a
workshop would be maybe 20 people.   Marc Blanchet has the action
item on possible logistics, which depends on the list of potential
invitees and their locations, and will work with John on this.

2) The program agreed that there are no known outstanding issues with
draft-iab-dns-zone-codepoint-pples and that it was ready to advance
to the next stage.   Dave will bring this up at the next IAB
business meeting (8/15).    Regarding draft-liman-tld-names, Liman
stated that it is now overtaken by  draft-iab-dns-zone-codepoint-
pples and so we should just focus on that draft.

3) Dave reported on draft-iab-identifier-comparison, where he has
comments from John Klensin (to remove the dependency on RFC 952)
and Leslie Daigle (to add a discussion of convolution of two types
of identifier in the same string, and thus correct the discussion
of IP literals).   These comments will be addressed after IETF.

4) FYI, in the interests of disclosure: Andrew Sullivan is
participating in ICANN’s variant issues study, and John Klensin is
participating in ICANN’s gTLD application review.

–End Internationalization Program Report–

After discussion, Bernard agreed to issue an IAB Call for Comment on draft-iab-dns-zone-codepoint-pples, to end on 29 August 2012.

3.4. IP Evolution Program

–Begin IP Evolution Program Report, Jari Arkko–

1. Participants.

Hannes Tschofenig, Dave Thaler, Spencer Dawkins, Marc Blanchet, and
Jari Arkko met this morning to discussion work items in the IP
evolution team.

2. Membership

The group talked about possible updates to its membership, and the
general feeling seemed to be that if specific topics would benefit
from new persons, we can ask them to join. As an example, on the topic
of host configuration of routes, Stuart Cheshire might be a good
person to ask for help.

3. Document on no more IETF work on IPv4-only except for critical
situations

This document got support for SUNSET4 but they will not work on it.
Does the IAB want to take it over? Our conclusion was that we prefer
the IETF process for this topic.

AP: Jari to inform the INT ADs.

4. Route injection to hosts via DHCP and RAs

Dave says that the general RFC on IP configuration makes some general
statements about this topic. There is nothing specific for this
problem, but it talks about the general differences between RA- and
DHCP-based configuration mechanisms. The topic of route injection to
hosts is however a more general problem.

Spencer asked if there something for the IAB to do without writing new
documents?

Dave noted that there are two problems of interest to the IETF: how to
send host-specific information, and how dynamic can we make the
information.

Jari had some doubts if this heated topic from MIF is something that
we can successfully work on. Dave thinks that people are not reading
even the old RFCs. Marc will continue thinking about it, however, and
see if he finds a reasonable way forward.

AP: Marc to come back

5. Status report of anycast document,

We are waiting for a small update of the draft. AP: Danny.

6. Possible efforts in the firewall space

The IAB did a techchat with Stuart Cheshire and Dave Thaler on what
firewalls are good for and for not, and who they protect and do not
protect. The question to initiate the discussion was "why do I need a
firewall in a host when I could just not run the application?". Dave
provided slides for the techchat. The IAB thought that the slides and
discussion is interesting and should be documented for a wider
audience.

The document has been in Dave's queue behind a few other documents,
but as those other documents are almost ready now, Dave thinks that he
can get to this topic soon.

Hannes asks what our message would be other than a discussion of the
topic. Dave responds that this is mostly just adiscussion, and that
the issues are not as simple as they may sometimes appear so he
believes the document would be useful for the community.

AP: Dave to provide an initial document

7. Energy efficiency document

The team agrees that this is an interesting topic for the program to
work on. Jari asked about the scope of the work, general host issues
only, or also more into the sensor networking issues? Dave is open to
extending the scope. The group agrees on extending the scope.

There was discussion about what the document might say. Dave brought
up the general issue of soft vs. hard state and continuous refreshes.
Earlier work by Henning Schulzrinne and Pasi Eronen was pointed to.

Jari asked if the document would be recommendations vs. review of the
state of the IETF protocols and identification of gaps. The group
thinks that it should be only about the former. It is useful to
describe some number of approaches to deal with energy effiency and
the related tradeoffs.

We discussed whether to include other people in the effort. Bruce
Norman, Henning Schulzrinne might know someone who can contribute. But
we decided that we must first prepare an outline, define scope, and
understand what our main message will be before we can contact
possible other contributors.

AP: Jari to provide an initial outline, scope, intended message to the
group

8. Smart object architecture document directions.

A draft-00 was posted, with plenty of input from Dave but his
questions were not completely answered. Jari posted a -01 version
which attempted to move the document away from just the
interoperability & post-standardization focus. But the version has not
been reviewed by anyone yet, and Jari thinks it still needs more work.

AP: Jari to ask from CORE/LWIG for review.

AP: Hannes to review -01

9. Report from the smart object security workshop

Not started. Needs to be written, though this is not an IAB activity.

AP: Hannes to post an initial version.

10. Internet over port 80 & 443. What should we do in this space?

The IAB already discussed this. Some team members thought that the
IAB's conclusion was that a document would be useful and we should be
descriptive rather than making recommendations or endorsements, but
the rest were not sure if that was correct.

Discussion about the nature of the document, if it cannot make
recommendations it might be less interesting as an IAB document.
Though there might recommendations on what research would be useful in
this space to better understand what the real-world Internet situation
is.

Discussion about what the document could say, and whether existing
documents such as BCP 56 already contain.

We need more discussion on what to do here, and what the possible key
messages are.

–End IP Evolution Program Report–

3.5. IANA Evolution Program

–Begin IANA Evolution Program Report, Jari Arkko–

At IETF-84, IANA-related topics were discussed at several meetings:

  - the IANA program meeting
  - a meeting with Vernita Harris and Tim Polk from NTIA
  - a meeting in the daily operations group between IETF and IANA

The meeting with Vernita Harris and the IETF leadership reviewed the 
current situation with the IANA contract and expectations going 
forward. The IANA contract being signed recently was a welcome event 
for both the NTIA and the IETF.  The NTIA expressed that they do not 
intend to participate in the day-to-day operations of the IANA, such 
as registry allocations. The IETF leadership expressed the IETF's and 
international Internet community's desire to continue on a path 
towards less government involvement in the IANA function.

The IANA program meeting discussed the results of the meeting with 
NTIA, strategic direction, advice for further interactions with the 
NTIA, and the planning of further activities.

Our long-term strategy for the IANA function involves understanding 
what our trajectory and goal is; at the high level these have been 
agreed ("less government involvement") but we need to develop a more 
specific long-term and short-term end goals. A community buy-in needs 
to be developed for any changes or new models, and there has to be 
motivation by the directly participating organizations to make changes 
from the current situation.

The meeting discussed advice for possible further interactions with 
the NTIA, and provided Russ Housley some feedback on how to approach 
the discussions.

Three upcoming short-term actions are needed:

1. The IANA program members are working on understanding
  the full scope of namespaces managed by IANA, and what interactions
  this management requires. This is necessary in order to plan for
  possible future events or changes in the way that the IANA function
  is structured. This activity has been initiated by Olaf Kolkman and
  continues during August.

2. Possible future meetings with the NTIA by the IETF and IAB chairs
  are being discussed.

3. The upcoming I* meeting (ICANN - W3C - IETF - ISOC) in September 
  5-6 will also discuss the future evolution of the IANA function. For 
  the upcoming meeting, Russ Housley, Jari Arkko, and Olaf Kolkman will 
  attend from the IETF side.

The daily operations group meeting focused on the status of the 
practical arrangements between the IETF and IANA.  The bulk of the 
meeting was spent on planning how to respond to NTIA's request for 
"User Documentation". Elise Gerich outlined the specific categories of 
documents that would be needed, and for the most part existing RFCs, 
SLAs, and other already published documents will suffice for this 
request. We may want to think about if there is some new RFC that 
should be written to clarify some missing aspects.

–End IANA Evolution Program Report–

4. CC Workshop Followup

The board briefly discussed followup actions from the congestion control workshop. Alissa and Spencer have posted their notes to the IAB list, and both Mary and Hannes have recordings that can be used to fill in any gaps. Spencer agreed to draft minutes from the workshop based on these inputs. Once the minutes have been produced, they will be sent to the workshop list for comment, and Mary took the action item to upload the reviewed minutes to the IAB website along with the other presentation materials. Hannes is working on the workshop report, which will take the workshop minutes and materials into account.

5. Hourglass

Draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443 and draft-tschofenig-hourglass are being discussed in the IP Evolution Program. Hannes and Marc took action items to update the documents.

6. RFC 2870bis

Danny reported that he is following up with Peter Koch on 2870bis and hopes to have an update for the next IAB business meeting.

7. Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

The board discussed the timeline and process for approving the “Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm” statement. Currently the working assumption is that the process for approval of an IAB/IESG statement applies. Bernard took the action item to follow up with Russ to confirm this.

8. TUE and ISO/IETF Relationship

The board discussed the relationship between ISO and the IETF. Spencer agreed to follow up with Allison Mankin about reactivating the ISO/IETF liaison relationship.

9. OMA Liaison Position

The board briefly discussed filling the open OMA Liaison Manager position, but decided to defer a decision until IAB and IESG members are back from summer holidays and have had a chance to provide input.

10. IEEE 802/IETF Meeting Next steps

The board discussed follow-up actions from the meeting with the IEEE 802 leadership held in July. Dave Thaler agreed to send email to the Internet Area Directors about the response to the inquiry from Glen Parsons, relating to what IETF protocols would be impacted by the OUI tier restructuring under consideration by the IEEE 802 RAC.

11. ICANN BOT Position

The board re-affirmed their intention to have Thomas Narten continue as liaison to the ICANN Board of Trustees through the current ICANN transition. This decision has been communicated to ICANN as well as Thomas.

The board will issue a call for nominations for the ICANN BOT Liaison in January 2013, with the intent to name a liaison by early March 2013, so that the new liaison can be in place before the ICANN meeting in April 2013. Mary will send a more detailed timeline for this process to the board.

12. I* Leaders’ Meeting

Bernard reported that there will be an I* Leaders’ Meeting 5-6 September in London, that he will be unable to attend due to conflict with planned vacation. Since the agenda includes discussion of IANA Evolution, the IAB lead (Jari) and Chair (Olaf) have been asked to attend. Olaf has agreed but Jari’s status is unknown. Bernard agreed to follow up with Jari to see whether he can make it. Danny volunteered to attend if Jari cannot.