Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2018-07-16

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2018»IAB Minutes 2018-07-16

Minutes of the 2018-07-16 IAB Business Meeting, Montreal

1. Attendance


  • Jari Arkko
  • Ted Hardie (IAB Chair)
  • Gabriel Montenegro
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
  • Erik Nordmark
  • Mark Nottingham
  • Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
  • Melinda Shore
  • Olaf Kolkman (ISOC)
  • Robert Sparks
  • Jeff Tantsura
  • Martin Thomson
  • Brian Trammell
  • Suzanne Woolf


  • Deborah Brungard (IESG Liaison)
  • Alissa Cooper (IETF Chair)
  • Christian Huitema
  • Allison Mankin (IRTF Chair)


  • Marco Hogewoning
  • Elizabeth Olouch
  • Colin Petrie

2. RIPE NCC discussion of relations with ITU on ENUM delegations

Marco Hogewoning presented a brief overview of the current ENUM registry system. ENUM is for mapping the global phone number structure into the DNS. is used for this purpose, with allocations based on ITU-assigned country codes.

There is a procedural agreement between the IAB and the ITU TSB that RIPE NCC operates the registry and e164.arp root zone. Allocation requests are verified by national governments via the TSB.

20 out of 57 current delegations are not functioning correctly:

  • 2 zones were delegated but never completed technical setup
  • 4 zones have been set up but were later removed by the owners
  • 14 zones have RIPE database domain objects but are not answering.

An additional zone has a note that says “this delegation will end on 30 June 2013,” but is still functioning.

Instructions on handling removal and deletion requests were not include in the instructions the IAB gave to RIPE when this was first set up. Additionally, created objects can be changed and removed via the RIPE database, and there are no instructions for dealing with those changes. Both RIPE NCC and the TSB publish a list of the delegations, but with no clear instructions on how to synchronize there is a significant risk that these will fall out of sync.

While ENUM is not used very much (RIPE gets approximately 1 request every 2 years), the process is fragile, and there is a risk of institutional capacity slipping away. Marco Hogewoning proposed that a subset of the IAB work with RIPE to discuss the issues and possible changes to the process. Ted Hardie, Robert Sparks, and Martin Thomson agreed to review this from the IAB side.

3. IETF status of Internet-Drafts submitted to ITU Study Groups

Marco Hogewoning noted that there has been a recent surge in failed Internet-Drafts submitted into ITU Study Groups. Sometimes these submissions misrepresent their IETF status, which Marco said he plans to raise during the RFCPLUSPLUS BOF.

Erik Nordmark observed that the IETF does not write up the reasons why they decide not to do something. Ted Hardie replied that in the Areas that use Dispatch processes, it can be seen when something does not even get through the first stage of the process. Erik added the ITU can send liaison statements if they want the current status of a draft. Ted replied that sending liaison statements is a fairly heavyweight process for that, and suggested talking to the liaison manager about how to handle this more informally.