Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2016-04-03

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2016»IAB Minutes 2016-04-03

Minutes of the 2016-04-03 IAB Business Meeting
Buenos Aires, Argentina


  • Marc Blanchet
  • Mary Barnes
  • Ralph Droms
  • Mat Ford (ISOC Liaison)
  • Ted Hardie
  • Joe Hildebrand
  • Russ Housley
  • Lee Howard
  • Suresh Krishnan (IESG Liaison)
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
  • Erik Nordmark
  • Robert Sparks
  • Andrew Sullivan (IAB Chair)
  • Dave Thaler
  • Brian Trammell
  • Martin Thomson
  • Suzanne Woolf


  • Olaf Kolkman (ISOC)


  • Jari Arkko (IETF Chair)
    Lars Eggert (IRTF Chair)

1. Executive Session: IAB Chair Selection

In an executive session, the IAB selected Andrew Sullivan as the IAB Chair for 2016-2017.

2. IAB Programs

Ted Hardie will take over as IAB Lead of the Internationalization Program.

The Emergency Services Program will be concluded.

3. Liaison Shepherds

Robert Sparks will take over as liaison shepherd for 3GPP.

Lee Howard will take over as liaison shepherd for CableLabs and ICANN NomCom.

Andrew Sullivan will take over as liaison shepherd for ICANN RSSAC.

Martin Thomson will take over as liaison shepherd for W3C.

4. Influence of ETSI 5G work on Next Generation Protocols

Ted Hardie reported that the ETSI Industry Specification Group (ISG) on Next Generation Protocols (NGP) currently includes:

  • Addressing
  • Security, Identity and Authentication
  • Mobility
  • IoT requirements
  • Video and content distribution requirements
  • Requirements from ultra‐low latency use cases from different sectors (i.e. automotive)
  • Needs of network operators (e.g. challenges with E2E encrypted content)
  • eCommerce requirements
  • Increased energy efficiency requirements within the global ICT sector

Ted Hardie noted that there are implications on interoperability; it has been asserted that many of the 5G protocol types will want to use very small protocol chunks, closer to PDCP without the IP layers on top.

If things go well, any action items that touch on IETF work will come to the IETF to get attention. The IAB may want to think in particular about the architectural implication of network slicing and tinygrams before the work arrives. The IAB should also follow this work to make sure it supports interoperability with IETF protocols

Ralph Droms noted that he is still trying to get on the mailing list for this ISG. Brian Trammell observed that the work falls vaguely into the same area as the IP Stack Evolution Program work, but that liaison oversight would be needed as well. Olaf Kolkman asked if anyone from IEEE is involved; Ted Hardie will ask Juan Carlos Zuniga about that.

5. Readout from IOTSI Workshop

Dave Thaler reported to the IAB on the recent IOT Semantic Interoperability (IOTSI) Workshop. The idea for the workshop came out of RFC 7452: Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking, and the IETF 92 plenary on the same topic. The goal was to get articulate people from as many relevant organizations as possible, who could actually make a difference after the workshop.

The workshop organizers were hoping to facilitate introductions between relevant organizations, generate a report on what was discussed, identify opportunities for cross-organization collaboration, and have some lasting impact after the one-time event was over.

The workshop required a position paper from everyone, including program committee members. 66 papers were submitted; 42 were accepted, and 37 authors attended the meeting. There were representatives from many organizations, including:

  • AllSeen Alliance
  • IPSO Alliance
  • ETSI
  • IETF
  • IAB
  • W3C
  • OCF (OIC, UPnP)
  • NIST
  • OGC
  • OpenDOF
  • CableLabs
  • OMA
  • ZigBee Alliance, even
  • Vendors, operators, research organizations

Several organizations co-located meetings that week in Silicon Valley. Because of this, the goal to get people from the different organizations together was already being achieved before the workshop even started.

As a result of the workshop, the mailing list is now public and open for continuing discussion (to subscribe: There is also an agreement to set up an open wiki to collect cross-organization information, including pointers to org-specific schema repositories and pointers to org-specific meeting schedules to facilitate co-location. The initial wiki is available at

Jaime Jiminez and Michael Koster are drafting the workshop report.

Dave Thaler took an action to put together a couple of slides on the workshop to report on during the IETF 95 plenary.

7. IAB Names & Identifiers Program Review

Suzanne Woolf updated the IAB on the current state of the IAB Names & Identifiers Program. The Program covers various topics concerning naming and resolution. This includes questions like:

  • Basic terminology: what do we mean by “names,” “identifiers,” and “name resolution” in the internet?
  • Where are naming protocols and infrastructure important to the work of the IETF?
  • What should protocol designers know about re-using existing naming
    systems or inventing their own for protocols?

The Program provided input into the Alternative Resolution Contexts for Internet Naming (ARCING) BOF, and is considering the following drafts:

  • draft-lewis-domain-names-01 (terminology)
  • draft-trammell-inip-pins-01 (guidance to protocol designers)
  • draft-hardie-resolution-contexts-02 (guidance to protocol designers)
  • rfc2826bis (terminology)

Suzanne Woolf said that the Program has done some exploration of the space, but needs more energy in the room. While there is no crisis at the moment, special use names has some urgency for the IETF and possibly IANA. The IAB needs to either offer guidance to the IETF or do the work themselves; several working groups are already dealing with naming issues.

The IAB noted that there seems to be a preference for TLDs, which relates to a recurring pattern of flat, unscoped namespaces. Dave Thaler, Andrew Sullivan, and Ralph Droms agreed to work on a document stating that not everything needs a TLD, and that flat, unscoped namespaces will lead to collisions. There’s also general interest in further guidance to protocol designers on naming and resolution generally.

INIP was also used to establish the convention that all IAB technical programs should have public mailing lists associated with them, in this case at