Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2013-05-09

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2013»IAB Minutes 2013-05-09

MINUTES OF THE 2013 IAB RETREAT
9-10 May 2013, Dublin, Ireland

PRESENT

  • Bernard Aboba (via teleconference)
  • Jari Arkko (IETF Chair)
  • Mary Barnes (IAB Executive Director)
  • Marc Blanchet
  • Ross Callon
  • Alissa Cooper
  • Spencer Dawkins (outgoing IAB, incoming Transport Area Director)
  • Lars Eggert (IRTF Chair)
  • Mat Ford (ISOC Liaison)
  • Joel Halpern
  • Russ Housley (IAB Chair)
  • Eliot Lear
  • Barry Leiba (IESG Liaison)
  • Xing Li
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Assistant)
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Dave Thaler
  • Hannes Tschofenig

REGRETS

  • Heather Flanagan (RFC Editor Liaison)

GUESTS

  • Leslie Daigle
  • Lynn St. Amour
  • Sally Wentworth
  • Richard Barnes

AGENDA

  1. Re-framing draft-iab-filtering-considerations
  2. How Should the IETF Engage Regulators?
  3. Growing the Organization
  4. How can the IAB Lead the Community?
  5. Program Framework: Part 1
  6. RFC Series
  7. Workstyle of the IAB
  8. Implications of Internet Architecture Ossification
  9. USTR Letter
  10. Liaison Oversight and Role of the Liaison Shepherd
  11. Potential IPAD Workshop
  12. IAB Techchat with EENA & NENA on Interaction with Regulator
  13. Review List of Internet Topics
  14. Are Changes Needed to the IAB Programs? Part 2
  15. Do we need a Regulatory Program?
  16. Retreat Evaluation

MINUTES

1. Re-framing draft-iab-filtering-considerations

Richard Barnes joined the IAB for the discussion of draft-iab-filtering-considerations. Richard and Alissa Cooper prevented a brief overview of the current document, which was intended to give governments and other organizations looking to filter services an insight into the technical implications of such filtering.

The planned next version of the document (-03) will include evaluation criteria for the entities that may block traffic, including feasibility, scope, granularity and efficacy for each of the entities. Dave Thaler asked that the document also include a set of possible use cases, as well as a taxonomy.

The board discussed whether the document should discuss the differences between blacklist and whitelist systems, which have very different properties with respect to filtering considerations. Dave Thaler agreed to draft some text on the subject and send it to Richard Barnes and Alissa Cooper.

2. How Should the IETF Engage Regulators?

Alissa Cooper and Sally Wentworth led a discussion about how the IETF engages with regulators, particularly with respect to the work going on in the PAWS and ECRIT working groups as the IETF tries to provide technical expertise to regulators. Sally noted that the regulators are a function of governments, and as such are subject to periodic changes.

The board briefly discussed the idea of a regulator workshop, noting that with the total (and ever-changing) number of governments, scalability might be an issue. Eliot Lear suggested attending the Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) put on by ITU-T.

The board discussed the notion of a government roundtable. Eliot agreed to contact a few people to understand better how that worked with at least one other organization.

The board agreed to discuss creating a new IAB Program on Interacting with Regulators later in the agenda [see agenda item 15, “Do we need a Regulatory Program?”].

3. Growing the Organization

Eliot Lear, Joel Halpern, and Jari Arkko led a discussion about ways to grow the IETF. After analyzing the registration numbers for 16 IETF meetings, Eliot noted that the IETF is quite stable in terms of size, although RFC production is going up. The level of participation by region is also stable. Ross Callon noted that meeting registration cannot be the only metric for gauging the size of the organization, as a great deal of work is done over the mailing lists by people who do not attend the face-to-face meetings, for any of a variety of reasons.

Jari Arkko noted that there is not as much new work coming into the IETF at present, and suggested that that is an area where the IAB can help. Eliot Lear pointed out that there is a lack of operators and academics in the current IETF community. Leslie Daigle replied that the IRTF Applied Networking Research Prize was intended to build interest in the IETF from researchers.

The board discussed ways of reaching out in developing nations. Lars Eggert pointed out that often the solutions developed in the first world will not work in developing nations, but that the solutions being used in the developing nations could be useful if applied more widely. Lars went on to say that if the IETF is not relevant in the regions where the Internet is growing the most, then there is a problem.

Jari Arkko reported that the IAOC has discussed a possible meeting in South America, and asked what it would take to have a successful meeting in the region. Ross Callon suggested sending someone to a LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Address Registry) meeting ahead of time. Mary Barnes suggested doing outreach to the local universities and the local offices of companies that regularly send participants to the IETF. Lars Eggert noted that for the effort to be successful, the IETF cannot just go to the region once; continued visits would be necessary.

The board also discussed the IETF relationship with ISOC, in terms of mutual goals and interests, such as:

  • Recognition of the IETF, its standards
  • Open standards as the basis for the Internet
  • Deployment of technologies that are good for the whole Internet
  • Engaging whole world, not just parts
  • Health, vitality, and sustainability of the IETF

Leslie Daigle suggested creating a small design team to put together a list of mutual ISOC and IETF objectives, and keep each other informed.

4. How can the IAB Lead the Community?

Russ Housley reported that he contacted several long-time IETF participants and asked them what things the IAB could do that would be beneficial to the entire Internet. The responses were varied, and sometimes contradictory.

The board brainstormed a list of problems facing the Internet today, and agreed to refine the list and look for ways the IAB could work on those problems later in the agenda [see agenda item 13, “Review List of Internet Topics”].

5. Program Framework: Part 1

Dave Thaler led a review of the current IAB Program framework, defining a Program as a longer-term activity scoped and managed by that IAB that has various deliverables over time. The Program framework is intended to:

  • Increase output by involving more non-IAB members in IAB work
  • Minimize dependency on expertise of current IAB composition
  • Minimize dependency on tenure of individual members
  • Shift IAB focus from the work details to guidance/vision/big picture
  • Increase visibility of IAB activities

Work items are single deliverables (e.g., a document, a plenary, or a workshop) that are tracked by the IAB outside of a Program.

Programs typically have:

  • A Program Lead
  • An Ad Hoc committee with membership not tied to specific deliverables
  • A work plan and may have deliverables over time
  • A web page on iab.org
  • A mailing list
  • A status slide posted each IETF

Dave Thaler asked the board to consider the following questions:

  • Is the current structure working?
  • Is it getting the right things done?
  • Is the current empowerment model okay?
  • Does the community have the right amount of visibility and input into Programs?

The board agreed that visibility is still an issue. The board discussed Program reporting back to the IAB, and agreed to ask Program Leads for quarterly written reports (to be included in the IAB minutes, as Liaison reports are currently handled).

6. RFC Series

Joel Halpern provided an overview of the current state of the RFC Editor Program (the RFC Series Oversight Committee is mandated by RFC 6635). The RSOC serves as the general oversight for the policy decisions made by the RSE. The RSE has a plan for evolving the format of RFCs, and has posted an FAQ document to the community. She is also working on a Statement of Work for pieces that will be tasked to the RFC Production Center or otherwise hired out. Joel asked the board at what level the IAB wants to be involved in the oversight of the RSE.

The board agreed that oversight of the RFC Series has been delegated to the RSOC, but that any proposed changes by the RSE that would affect the RFC Series as a whole should be brought to the IAB for review and approval. As Program Lead, Joel Halpern agreed to report back to the IAB as necessary.

7. Workstyle of the IAB

Hannes Tschofenig led a discussion about the current IAB work style, and asked if any changes should be made. Hannes noted that the main focus of IETF work is on writing specifications, but gaps exist once the specifications are written and the IAB tries to solve collective action problems, especially when dealing with those (e.g., regulators) who are not familiar with the IETF work style. Hannes suggested that the following actions might be useful:

  • Develop educational material about IETF technology
  • Collect presentations given to government bodies to increase awareness and encourage others to follow
  • Extend the role of directorates beyond reviewing specifications
  • Outreach
    • Example: Webinar series on how IETF technology relates to CyberSecurity
    • Experiment to make improvements to the WebPKI (e.g., DANE) more visible to the wider Web community (via article series in popular computer magazines)
  • Use of modern technologies for education
    • Example: IAB Privacy Tutorial as a YouTube video
  • Increased transparency
    • Example: Opening up our IAB TechChats, IRTF presentations to the IAB?

Alissa Cooper observed that the IAB does not leverage the wider IETF community as much as it could, and wondered if decentralizing further than just the current Program structure would help. She also noted that the IETF as a whole does not have a public relations strategy. Hannes Tschofenig replied that ISOC does have a PR plan, and Alissa asked how that could be leveraged in an IETF context. Jari Arkko said that he and Russ Housley will take this discussion as input into their ongoing discussions with Lynn St. Amour and Leslie Daigle about coordinating with ISOC.

8. Implications of Internet Architecture Ossification

Marc Blanchet led a discussion on the implications of Internet architecture ossification, noting that several technologies that have been deployed for more than a decade (e.g., DNSSEC, IDN, IPv6) still have low penetration (lack of “network effect”). New protocols are being written that will work over new infrastructure (e.g., DANE over DNSSEC, 6LOWPAN over IPv6). Marc asked the board to consider the implications if IPv6 and DNSSEC deployment are still marginal in 5-10 years.

Marc Blanchet posited an Internet architecture that ran over IPv4, with multiple NATs in most paths, with no outgoing ports except http-80-tcp and ssl-443-tcp, and with no infrastructure security except client-sever SSL/TLS. The possible impacts of such an architecture on IETF protocols include:

  • VoIP, WebRTC all running over ports 80/443, client-server
  • A single transport protocol (HTTP, TCP)
  • No UDP
  • No DANE
  • Everything tunneled over 443
  • Network policing (e.g., firewalls, QoS, DPI)

Lars Eggert noted that all of the dependencies make it difficult to evolve the waist of the hourglass forward. He added that we will always be living in a world of partial deployment, as new things will be added faster than old things can be pushed out. Dave Thaler pointed out that application developers that want to deploy on a wide scale must write their applications to work on the lowest common denominator, which is why so many things are written on top of ports 80 and 443.

Marc Blanchet asked if there is anything the IAB can or should do to help lessen ossification. The board agreed that there is work on this that can be done in the IP Evolution Program. Eliot Lear suggested that the question is also relevant to the workshop being discussed later in the agenda [see agenda item 11, “Potential IPAD Workshop”].

9. Letter to Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)

The board agreed that Russ Housley, as IAB Chair, would sign a letter outlining the OpenStand principles to the USTR. Russ will work with the other signers about a similar letter to the European side of the trade negotiation.

10. Liaison Oversight and the Role of the Liaison Shepherd

Spencer Dawkins provided a brief overview of the role of the IAB in liaison oversight, noting that the IAB has two programs devoted to such: the ITU-T Coordination Program and the Liaison Oversight Program.

Spencer Dawkins noted that the IAB does not currently have strict criteria for when a formal liaison relationship is needed. Precedent suggests that such criteria would include:

  • Demonstrated benefit to IETF
  • Level of participation in the IETF
  • Overlapping (or closely related) charters
  • Availability of specifications
  • Access to work-in progress and mailing lists
  • Adherence to IETF copyright and IPR policies

The board noted that different liaison relationships require different levels of management. The board discussed ways for liaison managers to report back to the IAB and agreed that the IAB Shepherd for each liaison relationship should ask the Liaison Manager to provide periodic reports to the IAB on the status of their relationship. The board will review Liaison Shepherds and Liaison Managers once a year, after the new IAB is seated, to see if any changes are needed. The board also agreed to add the IAB Shepherd for each liaison to the page on the IETF website that lists liaison relationships [http://www.ietf.org/liaison/managers.html].

Eliot Lear agreed to take over from Spencer Dawkins as IAB Lead for the Liaison Oversight Program. Eliot will review the list of current liaison relationships and shepherds and suggest any proposed changes to the board at a future IAB business meeting.

11. Potential IPAD Workshop

Eliot Lear proposed a workshop on Internet Protocol Adoption / Diffusion (IPAD), with a goal of providing engineers with some understanding about economic success factors and providing academics and researchers with a view into some of the work the IETF is facing. The board agreed to hold this as an IAB-sponsored workshop, targeted for late Fall 2013. Eliot will send a draft Call for Participation to the board for review and discussion at the next IAB business meeting.

12. IAB Techchat with EENA & NENA on Interaction with Regulators

The IAB agreed to change the date of the June techchat to Monday, 3 June 2013 at 0700 PDT in order to accommodate the schedules of the invited speakers. Cindy Morgan will send WebEx information to the IAB.

13. Review List of Internet Topics

The board reviewed the list of Internet Topics brainstormed during agenda item 4, “How can the IAB Lead the Community?”, and grouped the work as follows:

Group 1:
Security (DNSSEC, TLS, IPsec, …)
Security of the infrastructure
Usability of security

Group 2:
Unwanted traffic

Group 3:
Filtering
Firewalls
Ossification (80/443)

Group 4:
Dynamic code distribution (post standardization)

Group 5:
Post-email world
Hosted Services / Privatization

Group 6:
Internet of things

Group 7:
SDN / non-traditional control plane
Data center networks and virtualization

Group 8:
Scalability
Routing scalability

Group 9:
Congestion control and real-time protocols

Group 10:
Research problems / Grand challenges

Group 11:
Health of the IETF

Group 12:
Measure protocol performance

Group 13:
Applications being aware of network connections

Group 14:
End of POTS
Emergency Services

The board agreed to looks for homes for this work during the next section of the agenda [see agenda item 14, “Are Changes Needed to the IAB Programs? Part 2″].

14. Are Changes Needed to the IAB Programs? Part 2

The board reviewed the groups of topics discussed during the previous section of the agenda [see agenda item 13, “Review List of Internet Topics”], and agreed to distribute the work as follows:

Work Taken in Existing Programs:

  • The IP Evolution Program will take on the following work:
    • Group 3 (filtering, firewalls, ossification)
    • Group 6 (Internet of Things)
  • The Emergency Services Program will take on the work in Group 14 (End of POTS).

Work Taken in New Programs:

  • A new Security Program will take the work listed in Group 1 (Security, Security of the infrastructure, Usability of security). Hannes Tschofenig will be the IAB Lead for this Program, with Ross Callon, Russ Housley and Eliot Lear participating as IAB members.

Work Items:

  • Joel Halpern will draft a brief outline of the issues listed in Group 7 (SDN / non-traditional control plane, Data center networks and virtualization).
  • Hannes Tschofenig will draft a brief outline of the issues listed in Group 4 (Dynamic code distribution).
  • Eliot Lear will draft a brief outline of the issues listed in Group 5 (Post-email world, hosted services).
  • Mary Barnes suggested that Lars Eggert (who was not in the room at the time) could draft a brief outline of the issues listed in Group 9 (Congestion control, real-time protocols).
  • Ross Callon and Joel Halpern will draft a brief outline of the issues listed in Group 8 (routing scalability and security).

The board also reviewed the membership of existing Programs, and agreed upon the following updates:

  • IANA Evolution Program
    • Lead: Bernard Aboba
    • IAB Members: Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Alissa Cooper, Russ Housley
    • Non-IAB Members: Olaf Kolkman (Program Chair), Marcelo Bagnulo, Leslie Daigle, Bill Graham, John Klensin, Danny McPherson, Alexey Melnikov, Thomas Narten, Andrei Robachevsky, Lynn St. Amour
  • Internationalization Program
    • Lead: Andrew Sullivan
    • IAB Members: Marc Blanchet, Xing Li, Dave Thaler
    • Non-IAB Members: Stuart Cheshire, Leslie Daigle, Patrik Faltstrom, Heather Flanagan, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman, Barry Leiba, Pete Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre
  • IP Evolution Program
    • Lead: Marc Blanchet or Dave Thaler (TBD)
    • IAB Members: Add Xing Li and Andrew Sullivan to existing membership
  • Liaison Oversight Program
    • Lead: Eliot Lear
    • IAB Members: IAB Liaison Shepherds (TBD pending review at a future IAB business meeting)

Dave Thaler reminded Program Leads that they are responsible for making sure that the mailing lists and information for their Program on the IAB website is up-to-date.

15. Do we need a Regulatory Program?

The board discussed whether there was a need for a Regulatory Program, noting that such a Program would need to focus on other regulators besides those in the United States, while acknowledging the difficulty of managing such with the large number of governments and regulatory bodies in play.

The board discussed whether such a Program would proactively seek out opportunities to interact with regulators, or whether the Program would only respond to public calls for comments. Open questions include how to find areas where IAB expertise may be of use, and how to scale that.

Dave Thaler suggested that there may be ways to leverage regional ISOC chapters to help find public calls for comment. Lynn St. Amour responded that ISOC would need to know which topics the IAB is interested, and at what point they would want to involve themselves. Hannes Tschofenig suggested that the IAB could work with ISOC to convey messaging once there is awareness of the topics that are of interest.

Russ Housley agreed to draft text outlining the scope and potential work items for a proposed Regulatory Program, and send it to the IAB for comments.

16. Retreat Evaluation

The board reviewed the structure of the Retreat. The board agreed that holding a joint meeting with the IESG prior to the retreat was useful, and that future IAB and IESG retreats should be planned to include a day of overlap in between.

The board also briefly discussed the possibility of holding two retreats per year and eliminating some or all of the IAB breakfast meetings held during IETF weeks, but did not make a decision. The board did agree to outsource venue and date selection for future retreats to the IETF Secretariat.

The board noted that more pre-work could have been done on some of the discussion topics in order to allow participants to have more of a background going into the discussions. That said, the board appreciated the amount and level of the discussions (rather than straight presentations).