Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

IAB Minutes 2014-04-09

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2014»IAB Minutes 2014-04-09

Minutes of the 2014-04-09 IAB Teleconference (Business Meeting)

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

1.1. Attendance

PRESENT
  • Jari Arkko (IETF Chair)
  • Mary Barnes
  • Marc Blanchet
  • Alissa Cooper (IESG Liaison)
  • Lars Eggert (IRTF Chair)
  • Heather Flanagan (RFC Editor Liaison)
  • Mat Ford (ISOC Liaison)
  • Ted Hardie
  • Joe Hildebrand
  • Russ Housley (IAB Chair)
  • Eliot Lear
  • Xing Li
  • Alexey Melnikov (RSOC Chair)
  • Erik Nordmark
  • Jonne Soininen (ICANN Liaison)
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Dave Thaler
  • Brian Trammell
  • Amy Vezza (IETF Secretariat)
REGRETS
  • Joel Halpern
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)

1.2. Administrivia

1.3. Action item review

The internal action item list was reviewed.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

The minutes of the 2 April 2014 business meeting remain under review.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1 ISOC Liaison Report

–Begin ISOC Liaison Report, Mat Ford–

Internet Society Liaison Report to the IAB
9 April 2014

I. Infographic: Collaboration for a secure and resilient Internet

This infographic explains the idea that when it comes to Internet 
security and resilience, the traditional approach of just protecting our 
own assets is not good enough – the Internet demands a sense of 
collective stewardship and shared responsibility to be truly secure and 
truly resilient to attack. Initial distribution of this material will 
take place at ENOG7 (http://www.enog.org/meetings/enog-7/)
in May.

http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/tech-matters/2014/04/creating-

secure-and-resilient-internet-community-collaboration-required

–End ISOC Liaison Report, Mat Ford–

2.2. IESG Liaison Report

–Begin IESG Liaison Report, Alissa Cooper–

Recent new working groups:
 None

Recently rechartered working groups:
 None

Current new chartering:
 DiffServ Applied to RTP Transports (dart) [External review ended 4/7]

Current rechartering:
 NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) [Internal review ends 4/10]
 JavaScript Object Notation (json) [Internal review ends 4/9]

Pending rechartering:
 None

Recently closed working groups:
 None

Personnel changes:
 None

–End IESG Liaison Report, Alissa Cooper–

2.3. IRTF Liaison Report

–Begin IRTF Liaison Report, Lars Eggert–

- Attempt to reboot the RRG not on a good track. Silence on the list 
  created for that purpose. If there is no energy in the community to 
  pull together a reasonable effort by the Toronto agenda request 
  cutoff, I will likely close the RG.

- GAIA ("Global Access to the Internet for All") "RG-to-be" side meeting 
  in London was well attended and had interesting speakers. Looking 
  forward to future meetings (hopefully, some of them on the agenda).

- Friday lunch meeting in London on a new proposal for a "datacenter 
  latency control" research group. Promising, looking forward to 
  hopefully first meeting in Toronto.

–End IRTF Liaison Report, Lars Eggert–

2.4. ICANN Liaison Report

–Begin ICANN Liaison Report, Jonne Soininen–

I. Public Comments needing attention (only highlights)
====================================
(All public comment processes: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment)

ICANN Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance's Submission 
to NETMundial
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ccwg-ig-netmundial-08apr14-en.htm>

(Comment period ends 29 April 2014)

IDN Variant TLDs ­ LGR Procedure Implementation ­ Maximal Starting
Repertoire Version 1 is Now Open for Public Comment
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/msr-03mar14-en.htm>

(Reply period ends at 22 April 2014)

Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm>

* JAS Draft Report: Mitigating the Risk of DNS Name Space Collisions
<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-mitigation-26feb14-en.pdf>

* Related FAQ
<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-mitigation-faqs-25feb14-en.pdf>
(Reply period ends at 21 April 2014)

ICANN Strategy Panels ­ Draft Reports
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategy-panels-25feb14-en.htm

Comment period ends at 30 April 2014)

II. Upcoming topics that could be relevant
==========================================

Name collisions
---------------
(Situation is the same as in March)
The JAS paper on the name collisions is key in this process and it would
be good that IETF people could take a look at this. It comes with 11
recommendations where the first one is to reserve .corp, .home and .mail
according the RFC 6761 process. Currently at the IETF, DNSOP is looking 
at that process to see how it suits todays needs.

III. (If relevant) upcoming meeting topics of importance
========================================================

On the IANA transition on the deadlines, ICANN senior staff published 
the following blog post:

"IANA in Transition: Update
(https://blog.icann.org/2014/04/iana-in-transition-update/)
by Theresa Swinehart on April 7, 2014

We received an overwhelming response to our call for feedback in the
design of a community-driven process toward achieving transition of
NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions. From the launch of the public
comment process in Singapore two weeks ago through last Thursday, we
received numerous ideas on principles and mechanisms and are now
incorporating them into our consultation materials. We also are taking
into account feedback received from our I* partners.

As a result, we need a little longer than the anticipated 7 April
deadline for finalizing and posting the scoping, draft process proposal
and timeline documents for further public dialogue. We will now be
posting COB on 8 April (UTC). Thanks for your understanding and stay
tuned!"

IETF and IAB provided official input in the given statements at the 
ICANN meeting. I have been told that this is only the start and not the 
end of the process. Therefore, we can input to this process also at a 
later stage.

–End ICANN Liaison Report, Jonne Soininen–

2.5. RFC Editor Liaison Report

–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–

1. RSE Report
* Style Guide
 With the conclusion of the community comment period on 2 April 2014, a
 revised and final draft has been completed. The RSE will be discussing
 the draft and the feedback process with the RSOC on Wednesday, 9 April
 2014. Some of the more contentious issues highlighted during the
 community discussion included: how to reference errata (and, by
 implication, what needs to change in the errata system); the definition
 of "stable reference"; and, how many spaces should go after a period. An
 updated draft will be posted after the discussion with the RSOC.

* RFC Format
 The RFC Format Design Team continues to make good progress on the I-Ds
 that describe the requirements and structure for the future RFC Format.
 The draft that describes the existing vocabulary for v2,
 draft-reschke-xml2rfc-06.txt, now describes all elements and
 attributes. The draft capturing the v3 changes has been updated to
 capture the teams feedback regarding changes required in the vocabulary
 to help remove the need for processing instructions in the canonical
 version of an XML-format RFC. The Gen-ART has also reviewed the v3
 draft and has started sending feedback to the author; the Design Team is
 considering the feedback now for a future version of that draft. Beyond
 the XML work, the Design Team is discussing the requirements for the
 HTML format and what would be required to make it a useful landing page
 for the community. For the PDF requirements, a -00 draft should be
 posted within the next few weeks.

 With the work on the requirements now largely in the details, the RSE is
 starting to work with Tools Team members to create a roadmap for
 prototyping the functionality described in the various requirements and
 to test out the new xml2rfc v3 specification. Information from
 prototyping activities will inform any necessary SoWs for code related
 to the new format.

* Upcoming event - the International Association of Scientific,
 Technical, and Medical Publishers Spring Conference and Innovation Workshop
 Heather Flanagan and Sandy Ginoza will be attending the Spring
 Conference and Innovation Workshop for the International Association of
 Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers in Washington, DC, the
 week of April 27. Sessions of particular interest include: The role of
 Publishers in Semantic Annotation and Knowledge Representation; Who are
 the Stewards of the Knowledge Ecosystem, and what is their Role?;
 Communications in Scholarly Publishing; and various flash sessions
 reviewing the latest tools and tricks for STM publishers.

2. RPC Report
* Additional editors - status report
 AMS has been in the process of hiring a PT RPC editor. They are
 completing the final checks and have 2-3 strong, viable candidates. They
 anticipate to make offer(s) by week's end.

* Stats and Metrics - Highlights
 see: http://www.rfc-editor.org/reports/
 Highlights: As expected with the surge of documents, the RPC has missed
 the SLA again for March. The SLA is still being met on average for the
 12-month period.

–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–

3. UDP at Layer 3.5

Joe Hildebrand and Brian Trammell led a discussion of UDP at Layer 3.5. It was agreed this is a good topic for the retreat for the combined meeting with the IESG.

4. European Multistakeholder Platform for ICT Standardization

Russ Housley led the discussion of the publication of the first Rolling Plan as produced by the European Multi Stakeholder Platform for ICT Standardization. The IAB reviewed the IETF representation in the Platform, and agreed to re-affirm Olaf Kolkman and appoint Andrei Robachevsky as representatives.

The IAB approved text for a message back to the Platform, pending edits to be made by Russ Housley. Olaf Kolkman will send the message back to the Platform.

5. End Runs Around Other SDOs

Mary Barnes asked whether Independent Submission stream document authors might use the Independent Submission stream to do end run work around IETF processes.

Dave Thaler replied that the Independent Stream Editor (ISE) can solicit reviews from any experts the ISE deems necessary. For example, if the ISE believes a document might affect a liaison relationship, the ISE could solicit review from the IAB, and when the IAB is asked, it should review and comment in a timely fashion.

Russ Housley mentioned that Nevil Brownlee (the ISE) was in the process of expanding the list of questions he requires of Independent Submission authors so he can detect collisions with other SDOs. Russ also mentioned that the IAB and Nevil will be able to meet at the Toronto IETF to review and discuss.

6. IETF 90 Tech Plenary

Andrew Sullivan sent email regarding a proposed plenary topic on names in the network. He mentioned to the IAB that the original topic may be too broad for a plenary topic and suggested limiting the topic to names and security elements. Various IAB members wanted more time to discuss the issue but supported the change in focus.

7. Retreat Agenda

Russ Housley sent a draft agenda for the IAB retreat. The IAB discussed the draft agenda. Russ requested that the IAB continue to discuss and develop topics for discussion at the retreat.

8. RPKI GTA Design Discussion

There was a short discussion on ICANN’s request to name a person to lend their expertise to the design process for RPKI. It was decided that Russ Housley would send a call for volunteers to the IETF community for an expert.

9. Liaison Relationship with ECMA

Eliot Lear sent an email with the text for a request for a liaison relationship with ECMA. With a minor word choice edit, the IAB approved sending the request to ECMA.

10. ICANN Scoping Document Discussion

Eliot Lear sent email regarding the ICANN scoping and process documents. He mentioned there was a call for comments and that he had some concerns about what is in scope and what is out of scope for the documents. He also expressed concern that ICANN had oversimplified the role of the IETF and thought the IAB should be prepared to offer comments on both documents.

Jari Arkko stated both documents were drafts, and feedback would be welcome.

Andrew Sullivan outlined a way forward that the IAB’s IANA Evolution Program members be used to come up with initial comments and feedback, and if the IAB agrees, the comments can be sent as the IAB response.

11. Executive Session: RSOC Appointment

The IAB discussed the IAB appointment to RSOC in an Executive Session.

12. Executive Session: ISOC BOT Appointment

The IAB discussed the IAB appointment to the ISOC Board of Trustees in an Executive Session.