Minutes of the 2018-12-19 IAB Teleconference (Business Meeting)
- 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: https://www.icann.org/public-comments
–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: https://www.iana.org/performance/ietf-statistics 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 tables. IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes: MEETING MINUTES - BEGIN Summary of Meeting Minutes Monday, November 5, 2018 Lunch Meeting at IETF-103, Bangkok 1220 Local Time, 0520 UTC Attendees: 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 2018) 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 parameters. 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 out. 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 charts. M. Cotton will continue to provide a summary which the group finds helpful. 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. MEETING MINUTES - END
–End IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–
2.3. RFC Editor Liaison Report
–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–
RSE * 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 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/FormatToolsPlan 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. RPC * https://www.rfc-editor.org/report-summary/ 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 declarations).
–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–
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.