Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2018-12-19

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2018»IAB Minutes 2018-12-19

Minutes of the 2018-12-19 IAB Teleconference (Business Meeting)

1. Administrivia

1.1. Attendance

  • Harald Alvestrand (ICANN Liaison)
  • Jari Arkko
  • Michelle Cotton (IANA Liaison)
  • Heather Flanagan (RFC Editor Liaison)
  • Ted Hardie (IAB Chair)
  • Gabriel Montenegro
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
  • Erik Nordmark
  • Mark Nottingham
  • Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
  • Melinda Shore
  • Robert Sparks
  • Jeff Tantsura
  • Martin Thomson
  • Brian Trammell
  • Amy Vezza (Secretariat)
  • Suzanne Woolf
  • Deborah Brungard (IESG Liaison)
  • Alissa Cooper (IETF Chair)
  • Christian Huitema
  • Allison Mankin (IRTF Chair)
  • Marco Hogewoning (RIPE NCC)
  • Scott Mansfield (ITU-T Liaison)
  • Spencer Dawkins
  • Wes Hardaker

1.2. Agenda bash & announcements

An item on the IESG slate confirmation was added to the executive session portion of the agenda.

An item on the ESCAPE Workshop was added to the agenda during the meeting.

1.3. Meeting Minutes

The following meeting minutes were approved:

  • 2018-11-28 business meeting – (draft submitted 2018-11-28)
  • 2018-12-05 business meeting – (draft submitted 2018-12-05)

1.4. Action Item Review

The internal action item list was reviewed.

2. Monthly Reports

2.1. ICANN Liaison Report

–Begin ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–

ICANN report - up to December 19

Hot topics in/after Barcelona

ePDP on WHOIS: Easily the noisiest part of the week. ICANN Board has put 
a temporary policy in place that they believe will allow ICANN to 
conform to GDRP rules; the ePDP is the process to replace that with a 
community policy. It’s supposed to be fast (the “e” stands for 
“expedited”). It did not show signs of terminating in Barcelona, but it 
seemed that there was movement forward. I attended a short part of one 
of the sessions; it seemed that there’s little trust to be had - people 
are not convinced that they agree even when they use the same words to 
say what they want.

RSSAC reorganization: The RSSAC has emitted RSSAC037 - “A proposed 
governance model for the DNS Root Server System”. The Board technical 
committee is evaluating it, with the assistance of the ICANN org. No 
conclusions published so far.

Disposing of auction funds. ICANN decided to take part of the funds as 
recovery of costs incurred during the IANA transition (this seems to 
have been uncontroversial); the rest of the funds is going to be 
distributed according to rules set up by a community process. This is 
not likely to conclude soon.

.WEB. Some parties that lost the auction are still working all the 
process angles available (including courts of law). Don’t expect this to 
conclude soon.

.AMAZON. The board thought the parties (the Amazon countries and the 
Amazon corporation) had reached an agreement in principle, and passed a 
resolution based on that understanding. The board was then informed by 
the Amazon countries that they were wrong, and that they were calling 
off planned meetings with ICANN. It’s not clear how we can move forward 
on this subject.

DOH (DNS over HTTP) angst. The combination of the DOH spec and Mozilla’s 
DOH experiments have made a lot of people aware that DOH *could* be used 
to change who gets to see users’ DNS queries (ISPs vs Web-focused 
service providers). Now that the issue is raised, it’s garnering much 
more attention than DOT did.

Next meetings: Board retreat (with open board meeting) in January, ICANN 
meeting in Kobe in March.

The link to the list of open public comments period is here:

–End ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–

2.2. IANA Liaison Report

–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

IANA Services Liaison Report – 19 December 2018
SLA Deliverables Update:
- ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for both the September and 
  October 2018 monthly statistics reports, exceeding the SLA goal to 
  meet 90% of processing goal times.  These times include the steps that 
  ICANN has control over and not time it is waiting on requesters, 
  document authors or other experts.  Monthly reports can be found at:
Other News:
- IANA Services has implemented a simple post-ticket survey for protocol 
  parameter requests.
- Waiting for response from IDNA expert regarding posting of revised 
IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes:
Summary of Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 5, 2018
Lunch Meeting at IETF-103, Bangkok
1220 Local Time, 0520 UTC 
Jari Arkko, IAB IANA Program
Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair
Michelle Cotton, Protocol Parameters Engagement Sr. Manager
Ted Hardie, IAB Chair
Russ Housley, IAB IANA Program
Portia Wenze-Danley, IETF LLC Executive Director, Interim
Harald Alvestrand, IETF liaison to ICANN Board
Sabrina Tanamal, Senior IANA Services Specialist
1. Introductions and Welcome
Welcomed Harald in his new role as the IETF liaison to the ICANN Board.
2.  Review of Action Items
Completed: A. Cooper and T. Hardie to review existing escalation 
procedures. T. Hardie confirmed to follow the normal process, and the 
ombuds team is still the right team to handle the personnel type issues.
In Progress: A. Cooper and T. Hardie to discuss potential 8126bis or 
other document telling community to consider what data to publish in 
registries. This will be a joint draft between the IESG, IAB and IANA 
Services. T. Hardie mentioned there were pushback on the TRIP ITAD 
document. A. Cooper to work with the IESG on an IESG statement. M. 
Cotton suggested making the IETF community aware that there is a GDPR 
requirement and when creating a registry to only use the minimum amount 
of personal data.
In Progress: M. Cotton and K. Davies to write an I-D with the proposed 
plan for .ARPA. The draft is about 80% complete and will send for review 
in the next few weeks.
Completed: M. Cotton to forward the GDPR plan to IETF’s legal counsel 
for their information on 7/18/18.
Completed: M. Cotton and K. Davies to Review weekly email to Media Type 
experts to see if improvements can be made on 9/11/18.
In Progress: K. Davies to send follow-up email regarding the FY20 budget 
planning for feedback. Public comment is open on the IANA budget, but no 
comment as of last week. The budget is fairly flat. A. Cooper asked 
about the future of ICANN’s budget and how that will affect IANA.  M. 
Cotton to check with K. Davies for clarification.
Completed: T. Hardie to send the NTIA NOI response to our mailing list.  
Sent on 7/17/18.
3. IANA Services Activity
Processed more than 1187 IETF-related requests from June 2018 - 
September 2018. This includes: Document reviews, registry creations, new 
registrations, modifications to existing registrations, and deletions. 
Added 10 new stand-alone registries since IETF-102 (June 2018- September 
SLA Deliverables: 
Average cumulative percentage for April 2018- September 2018 was 99.83%. 
4. Update on Deliverables
The work for the Annual Review of Protocol Parameters by the new audit 
firm RSM is almost complete. Report will be delivered to the IETF 
leadership in January 2019.
We have been working on the revised 2019 SLA. Looking at adding some 
text to clarify the PEN statistics. Changes should be very minor.
T. Hardie: The PEN registry is still an IETF registry and don’t think it 
needs to be granular.

M. Cotton: We don’t provide granular data for PEN, but we just want to 
add something to the SLA that’s more accurate.

H. Alvestrand: Asked how active is the registry and what’s the volume 
annually? M. Cotton explained somewhere around 200 requests per month.

T. Hardie: Will recommend to the LLC and for the signature date to try 
to get it in before March 1st. 
5. Update on Projects
General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)
M. Cotton: S. Eisner was going to talk to B. Biddle about data 
controller agreement, but no details yet.

T. Hardie: Confirmed that B. Biddle hasn’t said anything.

M. Cotton asked about the IETF’s experience with the opt-in/opt-out 
datatracker activity.  R. Housley indicated when people don’t choose the 
option to opt-in in the datatracker, the account gets dropped. T. Hardie 
said there was a request to cleanse the mail archive but the legal 
committee said no.
Registry Workflow System Project
-          M. Cotton: Not too much to report on the Registry Workflow 
System Project. Our software developer has been working on technical 
checks for root management. He plans to switch back in a couple of 
weeks. Regarding resources, we have a team of 5 with 3 people under our 
technical director, David Prangnell.

-          R. Housley: How is it that budget is flat, but you’re getting 
more resources? M. Cotton: These positions were budgeted before.  Also, 
the costs for KSK rollover in last year’s budget are not present in the 
FY19 budget.
Customer satisfaction survey
M. Cotton: The survey is being rolled out to our root zone customers 
first since it’s straightforward who the requester is. Eventually, we 
will continue with ports and media types, then adding other protocol 

T. Hardie: Suggested to send the survey to ADs, but A. Copper said the 
ADs won't do it and will question why IANA is surveying them. M. Cotton 
to give a heads up to the IESG before the annual engagement survey goes 
6. Discussion Items
Updates on Port Numbers Process Review
We’ve been utilizing the mailing list for reviewing port requests, and 
it’s been going well. We’re seeing more cross-training between experts. 
We’re also sending general questions to the list.
Updates about status of Media Type Experts
We’ve changed the process to individually assign the request to experts. 
The experts continue to learn from each other’s reviews.
IDN Tables – Updates since IETF-102: 
T. Hardie: Alexey has agreed to AD sponsor, and we’re looking for a 
shepherd this week, then it should go to Last Call. I don’t think we 
need to wait, but it needs to be in front of the community.

M. Cotton to ping T. Hardie by the end of this week.

R. Housley volunteered to shepherd the document
A. Cooper: asked about the status on 3gpp requests. M. Cotton: We’ve 
processed the IESG approval request, but the other request is currently 
waiting on the requester.
Feedback for FY20 budget:
See action items section above for explanation.

The budget is open for public comment now.
Looking ahead at the monthly report format
M. Cotton previewed the SLA dashboard to the group. Everyone agrees to 
modernize the report and have more live statistics than our current 

M. Cotton will continue to provide a summary which the group finds 
T. Hardie: Suzanne, Robert, and Gabriel are stepping off the IAB. M. 
Cotton: to review the IANA membership at the lunch meeting in March
7.  Informal Meeting Schedule
In person November 5, 2018 (Bangkok)
Phone January 28, 2019
In person March 25, 2019 (Prague)
Phone May 28, 2019 (the Monday before is a US holiday)
In Person July 22, 2019 (Montreal)
8. Summary of New Action Items
Action item: A. Cooper to work with the IESG on an IESG statement 
regarding the GDPR requirement and to only use the minimum amount of 
personal data when creating new registries.
Action item: M. Cotton to clarify with K. Davies on how ICANN’s future 
budget will affect IANA.
Action item: M. Cotton to ping T. Hardie by the end of this week 
regarding IDN request.

–End IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

2.3. RFC Editor Liaison Report

–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–


* RFC Format testing

The RPC continues to work through testing the tools released by the 
developers. A high-level workflow is in development to make it clear 
what order the RPC expects to use the tools in order to document the 
process for the community. 

The PDF renderer is in progress, and at it's conclusion the next step 
will be to complete idnits.

See for 
information on the expected release schedule for the various tools. 

* xml2rfc v3 evolution and management

The RSE, in consultation with members of the Tools Team, decided to 
decouple development of the xml2rfc v3 code from the updates to the spec 
(7991-bis) so the code would be completed before the contract period 
ended (Dec 31, 2018). The developer, Henrik Levkowetz, will be required 
to write an as-built report to identify where the discrepancies are. The 
RSOC is discussing how to determine how to resolve any discrepancies and 
manage the code in the future given the need for active, impartial 
reviewers and maintainers. 

* Developing a different satisfaction survey

The RSE is discussing with the RSOC the possibility of creating a more 
immediate customer satisfaction survey to measure author satisfaction 
with the RFC Editor's services. This would, potentially, be a simple 
SurveyMonkey survey that would go out to all authors upon publication of 
an RFC, and would hold a small number of questions, such as:

  - Did the editing services provided by the RFC Editor improve the 
    quality of your document? [Yes | No | Didn't notice]
  - What one thing would make the editing process easier or more 
    effective? [open]
  - May we contact you? [Yes | No] 
    (Exact questions are still TBD.)

* Security audits for web-facing RPC tools

Robert Sparks is putting together an SoW for a security audit of the 
web-facing tools used by the RPC, specifically the code in cgi-bin and 
the php code. Details on how to incorporate changes made as a result of 
the audit into the existing RPC environment are being discussed with the 
RPC. This code review would happen in 2019. 

* The International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical 
Publishers (aka, STM Association)
The RFC Editor renewed its membership with the STM Association. This 
community offers the closest analog to the standard publishing that the 
RFC Editor does, as there is no place where SDO publishers meet and 
discuss the vagaries of their respective communities and publishing 
workflows. In general, the RFC Editor gains valuable insights regarding 
norms and future direction within the STM publishing community.



From the reports page:

Q4 2018 notes: In Q4, the documents entering the queue are releasing 
others from MISSREF, which is why PGTE is higher than Submitted (see 
Figure 2). Overall, submissions have been average. The editors are using 
this time to work through the queue and test v3-related tooling. As 
previously noted, Figure 3 shows a steady decline in the number of pages 
in RPC actionable states since July.

The RFC Editor responded to a sizable legal request (14 individual 

–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–

3. draft-iab-wire-image

The IAB approved publication of draft-iab-wire-image-01 as an Informational RFC on the IAB Stream. Cindy Morgan will send an approval announcement to the RFC Editor.

4. Background Document on Internet Trust Infrastructure

Ted Hardie asked the IAB if there was interest in taking the comments that the IAB made on the Australian Assistance and Access Bill and editing them into something more general that could be pointed to if other governments consider such legislation in the future.

Martin Thomson suggested that the audience for such a document should be the people who are designing the protocols. Brian Trammell added that such a document would be useful for helping the protocol user communities understand a bit of the background on this topic.

Ted Hardie took an action to write a first draft of a background document on trust in Internet protocols.

5. Plenary Planning Program Update

Melinda Shore reported that Mary Barnes, Corrine Cath, and Aaron Falk have been added to the Plenary Planning Program. The Program is working on a technical plenary topic related to privacy for IETF 104. Melinda Shore will schedule a tech chat on the topic for January.

Melinda Shore noted that the IAB’s timeline for planning technical plenaries is currently on the private wiki, and asked if that could be moved to the public wiki. The IAB agreed to move this information, and Melinda took an action to put it to the public wiki.

6. ESCAPE Workshop

Mark Nottingham reported that the ESCAPE Workshop program committee is still looking for hosts and is now considering holding the workshop in Europe. Noting that the timeline for the CIPE workshop has been moved later, Mark asked if it would be possible to hold the ESCAPE workshop in the slot that had tentatively been held for CIPE prior to IETF 104 in Prague. The IAB agreed that it would be possible.

7. ITU-T (Executive Session)

In an executive session with Scott Mansfield (IETF liaison manager for ITU-T) and Marco Hogewoning (RIPE NCC), the IAB discussed current activities in ITU-T that may relate to IETF work.

The IAB took an action to review the ITU-T’s proposed update to the ENUM procedures.

8. Upcoming Appointments and Personnel Issues (Executive Session)

In an executive session, the IAB discussed upcoming appointments to the ICANN Technical Liaison Group, the ISOC Board of Trustees, and the IRTF Chair. The IAB also discussed the IESG slate presented by the IETF NomCom.