Minutes of the 2012-09-05 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
• Mat Ford (ISOC Liaison)
• Joel Halpern
• David Kessens
• Danny McPherson
• Jon Peterson
• Hannes Tschofenig
• Robert Sparks (IESG Liaison)

Regrets

• Jari Arkko
• Lars Eggert (IRTF chair)
• Russ Housley (IETF chair)
• Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Assistant)
• Dave Thaler

1.2. Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the 25 July 2012 meeting with the IEEE leadership have been approved by the IAB – the IEEE 802 approval is pending. he IETF 84 Technical Plenary Minutes are approved (including Dave’s updates). [Note: Bernard has since uploaded these to the proceedings]. The minutes of the 22 August 2012 Business meeting and the 29 August 2012 Tech chat and business meetings remain under review.

2. IAB Schedule

It was agreed to hold business meetings on September 12 and 19, 2012. September 26 is the BOF Coordination Call. The October 3, 2012 meeting will be a Tech Chat.

3. Liaison updates

3.1 ISOC Liaison

–Begin ISOC Liaison written report–

Internet Society Liaison Report to the IAB
  31 August 2012

  Topics:
  I. OpenStand affirmation of principles for the modern standards paradigm
  II. NSTIC IDESG meeting in Chicago
  III. WTPF 2013
  IV. APEC

  I. OpenStand affirmation of principles for the modern standards paradigm
  ISOC has been engaged in developing and the launch of the OpenStand   
  affirmation of principles for the modern paradigm of global standards  
  development (http://open-stand.org/).

  II. NSTIC Identity Ecosystem Steering Group meeting in Chicago
  The US National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC)   
  program held an initial meeting of the Identity Ecosystem Steering Group   
  (IDESG) in Chicago, IL 15-16 August 2012. Several members of the ISOC   
  Trust and Identity team were in attendance as observers including Lucy  
  Lynch, Karen O'Donoghue, Robin Wilton, and Christine Runnegar. This   
  meeting focused on the initial establishment of the IDESG, election of
  Management Council members, and the formation of an initial set of   
  working committees. ISOC staff participated in working committees on   
  Governance, Standards, Security, Privacy, and International Coordination.   
  The initial charter and bylaws under which the IDESG is operating have   
  several issues and are being revised by a Governance Task Force. This  
  work is expected to be completed in 90 days and will address issues such   
  as liaisons to existing external standards organizations active in this  
  space, observer versus member roles, and international participation.  
  Once the IDESG reaches a greater level of stability and maturity, it will   
  be more feasible to assess the potential long term impact of the   
  organization.

  III. WTPF 2013
  ISOC is developing a new submission to the ITU World Telecommunications   
  Policy Forum 2013. In close collaboration with ICANN and the NRO, we are 
  finalising an information document on RPKI emphasising that 1/ RPKI is a  
  standard developed for Internet registries; 2/ The proper venue for 
  discussion of issues related to this technology is the IETF's SIDR   
  Working Group, and; 3/ IETF standards development processes are   
  transparent and open to all stakeholders.

  IV. APEC
  ISOC was granted guest status at the last APEC TEL MIN meeting (7-8   
  August, St. Petersburg). This Forum is showing a growing interest in 
  Internet-related policies. The initial draft of the 2012 Ministerial  
  Declaration contained a problematic "Web 3.0" proposal from Russia. Some 
  member states, in cooperation with guests from the Internet community,  
  were successful in having the difficult language removed. ISOC was  
  represented by Constance Bommelaer.

–End ISOC Liaison written report–

3.2. IESG Liaison

–Begin IESG Liaison written report–

Covering 5 Aug to 5 Sep:

   Working Groups
    Creation:
        - A proposed charter for RMCAT is in external review
    Rechartering:
        - The DIME and IPSECME WG charters were updated.
    Conclusion:
        - none

–End IESG Liaison written report–

3.3. RFC Editor Liaison

–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report–

1. RSE Report

Update on Active Projects
* RFC Format
 At the RFC Format BoF during IETF 84, several possible solutions to 
 question of what format RFCs should take going forward were reviewed.
 Since trying to direct the conversation early on towards requirements
 rather than solutions failed, I have been deriving the requirements 
 from the pain points and conversation around the proposed formats.
 A draft of those requirements has been started with the RSE and ISE as
 co-authors.  The first draft has been reviewed by the RPC and will be 
 sent out for broader review in the next two weeks.  The goal is to 
 publish this document as an I-D by October 12, 2012.

* RFC Style Guide
 An I-D document of the new Style Guide has gone out for focused 
 feedback.  While there are several sections relating to the Format that
 will be added prior to publication, there is enough unrelated-to-Format
 content that this will be published for public discussion before 
 October 12, 2012. 

Other items of note:
* REFEDs, a group that has indicated a desire to become a new stream in to
 the RFC Series, is still actively pursuing this goal.  Based on the most
 recent conversations, they see RFC 5743 that established the IRTF stream as
 a good analog to their own efforts.  The exact process on creating a new 
 stream is still under discussion, and a new I-D will be drafted to define 
 those steps.  This will likely come up for more extensive conversations at 
 IETF 86.

2. RFC Production Center
SLA and Stats
* Average processing times are 3.5 weeks for RFC-Editor-timed states.  
 The RPC is working through recent bursts of documents that have been 
 released into EDIT (includes documents approved for pub and documents 
 released from MISSREF).

–End RFC Editor Liaison Report–

3.4. IRTF Chair

Nothing to report beyond what was in the IRTF report at IETF-84.

4. Technical Plenary Feedback

The feedback indicates that some people think the tech plenary is still too long. There is too much reporting similar to Marc’s feedback on the list. It was discussed as to whether the plenaries can be shortened again. The IETF 84 plenaries were 2.5 hours.

It was noted that we had one plenary until we did administrative restructuring, when we created two. The IAB used to share the single plenary with the IESG. Prior to the administrative restructuring this seemed to work fine. However, since then, Russ has found the single plenary to be a killer as IETF chair.

Since the decision on plenary configuration and length is up to the IESG, it was noted that the IAB should defer this discussion until Russ can weigh in. The IAB would need to coordinate any changes to the scheduling of the plenaries.

Some people think we don’t need to have a technical topic at every IETF meeting. Then we could have one plenary. Or we could have a briefer technical topic — one speaker for 30 minutes. Every IETF doesn’t have to have the same plenary arrangement.

Since the feedback was just a (small) sample, we can’t necessarily derive a clear confusion — but the topic is worth following up on.

Action items:

• David Kessens to obtain overall comments and post to the IAB
• Keep this on the agenda for a forthcoming meeting (when Russ is attending).

5. IETF 85 Technical Plenary Topic

Richard Shockey has suggested that the IAB consider “The End of POTS” as the topic for the Technical Plenary at IETF 85. He also volunteered to help find speakers (suggestions include officials from the CRTC and FCC). If the focus is purely on “policy” it was suggested that a lunch session might be more appropriate; IETF attendees typically expect a technical discussion at the technical plenary. There are also technical aspects (such as transition to IP of Fax, TTY/TDD, Emergency Services, etc.) that could be discussed. There was discussion about whether discussion of the interaction of regulation and technology (such as in PAWS WG) would make sense.

Alissa Cooper suggested an alternative topic: Network performance measurement. There has been discussion of the potential need for additional work in this area, relating to a desire to better characterize the performance (mostly of access networks). For example, Henning Schulzrinne (FCC CTO) has been active in this area.

Action items: Alissa (Network Performance Measurement) and Hannes (End of POTS) would further develop their Technical Plenary proposals. Additional discussion would occur next week, hopefully with a decision on direction shortly thereafter.

6. “Internet Collaboration” effort

There was discussion of IAB participation on the “Internet Collaboration” mailing list and conference calls. Constance B. of the ISOC typically chairs the calls. Matt Ford of ISOC agreed to add iab-chair@iab.org as well as Joel Halpern to the mailing list. Ross Callon will also be added to the list. The IETF Chair alias is already on the list.

Action items: Mat Ford to add Joel Halpern and Ross Callon to the mailing list and Mary to add some information to the wiki.

7. Liaison Oversight Program Update

There was discussion of whether the IAB needed to appoint a new liaison to OMA. At this time there is no obvious candidate. Spencer’s recommendation was not to reappoint an OMA liaison.

An IETF/IEEE 802 leadership coordination call is scheduled after the IAB meeting. There are two topics: RFC 4441bis and the list of topics on which coordination may be needed. The Liaison Oversight Program will handle the development of RFC 4441bis. The expectation is that the author team will begin developing text which will become an IAB work item.

The RFC 4441bis team will be a relatively small group including both IETF and IEEE 802 authors. Once a draft is available, IAB members as well as the IETF and IEEE 802 community will be given the opportunity to review and comment. However, the author team is being kept small so the work proceeds efficiently. Those who are concerned about the potential areas of cooperation will be kept in the loop but don’t need to be included in every conversation relating to RFC 4441bis. Therefore the RFC 4441bis effort and the coordination effort are separate.

Action items: Spencer to compose a note to OMA indicating that we are not re-appointing a liaison. Dan/Spencer to post a summary of the IETF/IEEE 802 coordination call to the IAB mailing list.

8. Segregated Queuing

Spencer stated that he believes RFC 3714 is worth revising. It’s more than just to say “use segregated queues” — it involves some topics from the Congestion Control workshop that are out of scope for RMCAT.

A question was raised as to whether this really an update to 3714 or an addendum to RFC 5290 (usefulness of best efforts). Segregated queues sounds more like RFC 5290, particularly if it is implemented using ECN, stochastic queuing or CoDel. Coordination of DSCP code points is not required. RFC 3714 is badly out of date, so it might not be worth revising.

It was noted that we need to talk to existing authors if we choose to revise an existing document.

Action item: Spencer to look at RFC 5290 as well as RFC 3714 and report back next week.

9. RFC 2870bis

There is nothing new to report yet. IAB has been cc’ed on the email thread.

10. Congestion Control Workshop Followup

Spencer has sent the meeting minutes to the participant mailing list. A deadline for any feedback is set for September 12. Hannes is working on the workshop report.

Action item: Hannes will send a link to the workshop report document to the IAB list.

11. Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

An Internet-Draft capturing the statement has been circulated. It was noted that sorting out the content of section 1 should not gate adoption by the IAB. Section 1 did not go out for comment to the IETF list. It is text from the press release and the web site. This is not necessarily clear from the current teext.

An alternative would be to remove section 1 from the document.

The IAB agrees to adopt the document, to be posted as draft-iab-modern-paradigm. Once it has been posted, the IAB will work on figuring out how to deal with Section 1.

12. Emergency Service Program (Hannes)

a. Liaison to M493

Hannes is currently at the M493 meeting. There has been discussion on the EMSERV Program list about what the goal of a liaison to M493 is.

Action: Hannes will arrange teleconferences of the EMSERV Program members to develop proposed liaison text for the IAB.

b. Updates to Emergency Service Program Membership

Hannes proposed to add Marc Linsner to the EMSERV Program List. Richard Barnes, while on the EMSERV list is no longer an ECRIT WG chair. Roger Marshall is on the list and is an ECRIT WG Chair. Given the relevance to ECRIT WG it is desirable to have both Chairs participating.

IAB approves adding Marc Linsner to the EMSERV program and mailing list.

Action item: Marc Linsner and Jean-Jacques Sahel (previously approved as an EMSERV Program Member) to be added to the EMSERV mailing list and the EMSERV program description on the IAB website.

13. Web Security Program

The IESG, ISOC and W3C are active in the area of Web Security. Hannes reported that a potential Web Security workshop is not planned for IETF 85. However, at IETF 85 there will be a BOF on HTTP security. Also, Lucy Lynch of ISOC is organizing a Web Security lunch. Harry Halpin will do the same at W3C TPAC.

At the IAB retreat, Harald Alvestrand indicated that he believed there was a potential need for work on WebRTC identity. One potential consideration is the relationship between the identity used in signaling (e.g., SIP From: field/PAI/RFC 4474, XMPP JID, etc.) and the identity asserted in media authentication (e.g., DTLS/SRTP with IdP). There is also ongoing work on the WebPKI trust model. Hannes noted that there is a new websec list.

The last conference call between the IAB and the W3C TAG occurred in 2011. There are a number of topics which might be useful to discuss in a subsequent conference call or a face to face meeting.

Now that the IESG has sharpened their thinking, the IAB should have a clearer idea on what issues are left to consider. It would be useful to organize a call or two to refine the program description. Invitees would include potential Web Security Program members, Sean Turner, Mark Nottingham, W3C folks, Harald Alvestrand. After that a meeting could be scheduled at IETF 85 with the goal of providing a Web Security Program description to the IAB for discussion and potential approval.

Action items:

• Hannes to organize conference calls and a Web Security meeting at IETF 85, with the goal of providing a program description for discussion and approval at the Thursday breakfast.
• Hannes to work with Mark Nottingham to organize a conference call with the W3C TAG.
• Hannes to forward link to new websec mailing list to the IAB.