Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2019-04-10

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2019»IAB Minutes 2019-04-10

Minutes of the 2019-04-10 IAB Teleconference

1. Administrivia

1.1. Attendance

  • Harald Alvestrand (ICANN Liaison)
  • Jari Arkko
  • Alissa Cooper (IETF Chair)
  • Michelle Cotton (IANA Liaison)
  • Stephen Farrell
  • Wes Hardaker
  • Ted Hardie (IAB Chair)
  • Christian Huitema
  • Mirja Kühlewind (IESG Liaison)
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
  • Mark Nottingham
  • Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
  • Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)
  • Melinda Shore
  • Martin Thomson
  • Brian Trammell
  • Amy Vezza (Secretariat)
  • Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
  • Zhenbin Li
  • Erik Nordmark
  • Jeff Tantsura
  • Spencer Dawkins

1.2. Agenda bash & announcements

Ted Hardie added an item to the agenda on the proposed IGF Day Zero Track. Stephen Farrell added an item under “Other Business” about the work flow for IAB statements.

1.3. Meeting Minutes

The following meeting minutes were approved.

  • 2019-02-27 business meeting – (draft submitted 2019-02-27)
  • 2019-03-06 business meeting – (draft submitted 2019-03-06)
  • 2019-03-13 business meeting – (draft submitted 2019-03-13)
  • 2019-03-24 business meeting – (draft submitted 2019-03-25)
  • 2019-03-25 business meeting – (draft submitted 2019-03-26)

The minutes of the 2019-03-28 business meeting remain under review. Cindy Morgan will send the portion of the minutes with the Thing-to-Thing Research Group review to the T2TRG chairs and ask them to provide any changes by 16 April 2019.

2. Monthly Reports (Liaisons) – 5 mins (Public)

2.1. IRTF Chair Report

–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

# Research Groups

IRTF Chair transitioned from Allison Mankin to Colin Perkins

All active research groups and proposed research groups met at IETF 104. 

QIRG (Quantum Internet) gave an excellent tutorial in their Monday 

COIN (Computation in the Network) had a productive first meeting as a 
Proposed RG, and began the process of refining the scope of their work. 

PEARG (Privacy) had a productive meeting, and seems on track for 
promotion to full RG after Montreal.

HRPC has been a little controversial due to a perceived heavy-handed 
approach to reviews of IETF protocols. Technical advisers have been put 
into place to help the RG chairs, and the incoming and outgoing IRTF 
chairs had several extensive discussions with the RG chairs on how best 
to proceed.

CFRG (Crypto Forum) and NMRG (Network Management) research groups have 
requested additional co-chairs be assigned, and are working with the 
IRTF chair to put these in place. GAIA co-chair is potentially affected 
by recent ISOC policy changes regarding participation in standards; 
discussion ongoing. 

CFRG had long mailing list discussion on if some of all of its work 
should move to IETF. Conclusion to make no change, but reasonable 
arguments both ways.

T2TRG was reviewed by the IAB during IETF 104. 

SMART was scheduled as an IAB sponsored session rather than an IRTF 
proposed RG. The session lacked focus, some topics could potentially 
form the basis for an IRTF RG, some clearly were not appropriate. 
Proponents have been advised to prepare a much more focussed proposal 
should they wish to be considered as a proposed RG in future, and expect 
to do so before Montreal. There is a discussion that is broader than the 
IRTF, and perhaps could be facilitated by the IAB, on what is the scope 
of work the community wishes to pursue in this area.


ANRP talks during IRTF Open Meeting at IETF 104: Florian Streibelt 
presented "BGP Communities: Even more Worms in the Routing Can", Brandon 
Schlinker presented "Engineering Egress with Edge Fabric: Steering 
Oceans of Content to the World", and Arash Molavi Kakhki presented 
"Taking a Long Look at QUIC: An Approach for Rigorous Evaluation of 
Rapidly Evolving Transport Protocols". Arash was originally scheduled to 
speak at IETF 103, but his talk was postponed due to visa issues.


ANRW will take place on the Monday of IETF 105 in Montreal, chaired by 
Jana Iyengar and Phillipa Gill. The TPC has been selected and a call for 
papers has been issued, with a submission deadline of 10 May 2019. The 
TPC chairs expect to have the programme by early June, giving time to 
de-conflict the schedule with the Monday IETF sessions. Transition of 
financial responsibility from ISOC to IETF LLC going reasonably 
smoothly, after several teleconferences and discussions between IETF LLC 
executive director, secretariat, and ANRW steering committee.

ANRW steering committee membership has been clarified as being one 
representative from each of the IRTF (the IRTF chair, or their nominee), 
ACM SIGCOMM, and the IETF LLC, along with one of the TPC chairs from 
each of the previous three workshops. The IETF LLC representative slot 
is currently vacant and needs to be assigned.

# Documents and Errata

Backlog of errata sent to RGs for review.
Catching-up on documents.

–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

2.2. ICANN Liaison Report

–Begin ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–

This report covers ICANN activity seen by the board liaison until April 
9, 2019.

The main activity in this period was the Kobe ICANN meeting (and the 
Prague IETF meeting, but only a little ICANN-related activity was 
conducted there).

Hot topics

- Future root server system governance: The draft concept paper prepared 
  by ICANN staff was discussed extensively in Kobe, both by the RSSAC 
  and by the Board Technical Committee. Mostly it was well received, but 
  of course there were comments, which will hopefully be addressed in 
  the next version of the paper, which is slated for public 
  consultation. The specific concept of “root operator independence” 
  seems to need more fleshing out in order to make sure we agree on what 
  it is - RSSAC is working on this.
  The new acronym in this space is the “GWG” - the “Governance Working 
  Group” that will be established to guide the policy process to a 
  Particular note to the IAB: At some point, the IAB will be asked to 
  agree to the outcome of the process. At this time, we don’t know 
  exactly when that will be.
- Cyberattacks on the DNS ecosystem: Awareness raising activities - 
  there was a special session on this in Kobe. Not a huge number of 
  attendees, but got some positive feedback. It is important to ICANN, 
  but ICANN isn’t in a position to do that much apart from awareness-
  raising and looking at whether it can require its contracted parties 
  to practice decent security.
- .Amazon - the board passed  a resolution before the Kobe meeting 
  started, giving a short timetable for a final stab at negotiation 
  between the parties before ICANN would make a decision. Discussion 
  between the parties has happened (which is good), but at the moment of 
  this writing, no agreement has been reached.
- CCT report - there was a certain amount of angst expressed in Kobe 
  about what the political and practical implications were of the ICANN 
  board deciding to evaluate some of the recommendations further before 
  committing to implementing them. Discussion ongoing.
- IDN - the concept of “universal acceptance” (the ability to use all 
  scripts and languages everywhere) was a surprisingly hot topic in 
  Kobe. The ICANN-related stuff here is first of all making sure IDNs 
  are available, then to make script-specific rules for labels in the 
  root context (the RZ-LGR work), thirdly to encourage the registries 
  and registrars to use the same rules when registering names at second 
  and lower levels, and fourthly to help generally in raising awareness 
  of the need for universal acceptance and the actions needed to achieve 
  Most of the script working groups for RZ-LGR are at or near their 
  finish lines; in Kobe, awards were  handed out to successful RZ-LGR 
  group leaders.
  Changing the rules of IDNs seemed to be a non-topic; despite the name 
  of the ccNSO WG on “emojis” (
  emoji-sld.htm), nobody really pushed for changing the rules that say 
  “non-letters can’t be in IDNs” (at least in my hearing). The SSAC 
  reports on this matter seem to be standing us in good stead.
- Hyperlocal (RFC 7706 and its -bis) is still a topic of interest in 
  root-ops circles. ICANN’s L-root plans (acronym: IMRS - ICANN-Managed 
  Root Server) includes trying to make a distribution service for the 
  root zone for use with hyperlocal. This also links with trying to get 
  more contact with people running intermediate resolvers - the work 
  done with the root key rollover has convinced many that ICANN needs to 
  be more closely in touch with the people who run this part of the DNS 
- GDPR and its fallout - the ePDP on WHOIS succeeded in delivering a 
  report and a set of recommendations - but a number of people worried 
  about whether it had succeeded by “kicking the can down the road” on 
  the parts that have to be implemented, such as the actual service for 
  answering requests for access to non-public data. It’s still 
  controversial whether ICANN should run such a service, whether each 
  registry and registrar should be in charge of its own service, or 
  whether some other model would make sense. The “Technical Experts 
  Group” of the GNSO (not to be confused with the TLG or the ICANN-level 
  TEG)  has come up with a study saying that it’s possible to run such a 
  service, and with a fairly good description of what the service would 
  have to look like if it were to exist - but deciding that it should 
  exist is still a political decision.
  GNSO is still in the process of putting together the working group for 
  part 2 of the ePDP, including searching for its chair (last I heard). 
  Everyone’s promising that the workload on the part 2 WG won’t be as 
  bad as the workload on the part 1 WG. It’s not clear that those 
  promises are trustworthy.

The main activity for next month is the Board workshop in Istanbul, May 
1-3, followed by the GDD Industry Summit in Bangkok (a get-together for 
the contracted parties of ICANN).

–End ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–

2.3. IANA Liaison Report

–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

IANA Services Liaison Report – 10 April 2019
SLA Deliverables Update:
- ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for February 2019 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:
- IDNA tables were updated:
IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes:
Meeting minutes from IETF-104 are being drafted and reviewed.

–End IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

2.4. RFC Editor Liaison Report

–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–


* RFC Format status

The Datatracker opened to accept v3 documents on March 25, kicking off a 
new stage of testing for the format tools. The latest draft versions of 
draft-flanagan-fiftyyears have been submitted as v3 documents, as have 
other drafts, and issues are being tracked in the trac issue tracker 

* Fifty Years of RFCs

The RSE has posted three updates to draft-flanagan-fiftyyears in March, 
bringing in an additional contributor (Vint Cerf) and taking into 
account feedback from members of the RSAG as well as John Klensin. This 
draft is expected to go to the IAB for approval to publish in April 

* Satisfaction Survey Update

Thirty-five RFCs have been published since the satisfaction survey 
experiment started on 1 February 2019. Surveys were sent to each of the 
authors and document shepherds for those RFCs, resulting in 149 
individual surveys. Of those surveys, 24 individuals have responded, 23 
of whom indicated that the editing service provided by the RFC Editor 
improved the quality their document. The one individual who responded 
negatively indicated that the issue was with the AUTH48 process itself, 
not the quality of edits. This survey experiment will continue to run 
for the remainder of the year, at which point the results will be 
reviewed with the RSOC and reported to the community, and the questions 
in the survey re-evaluated.

* Updating the Annual Review Process for the RSE
During the March meeting, the RSOC agreed to formalize the review 
process for the RSE. This is not a performance evaluation effort; given 
the contracted nature of the role, performance evaluations are not 
allowed based on US employment law. In June, the RSE will propose the 
RSE goals for the following 12 months to the RSOC. Upon approval, which 
will include prioritization and possible adjustment of those goals, the 
RSE will start a regular reporting process back to the RSOC on progress, 
and create an annual report that summarizes the activities and how the 
goals were met for the previous 12 months.

Note: this process is in review as it pertains to the requirement for a 
"performance review". However, the RSE gives regular feedback today on 
goals, projects, and points of interest, typically on a monthly basis, 
and at a minimum at each IETF in-person meeting. 


* - The SLA was met for Q1 
2019. During IETF, we predicted we would not meet the SLA.  We assumed 
we would be at Tier 1; however, 14 documents (442 pages) were submitted 
in the last week of March, which pushed us into Tier 2 of the SLA. 

Additional highlights:

- coordinated the "How to Create an I-D Using XML or Markdown" tutorial 
at IETF 104
- wrote FAQ for xml2rfc v3 (and put it on github so it can be revised w/ 
community collaboration)

–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–

3. Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol Development (DEDR) Workshop

The IAB agreed on Helsinki as the venue for the DEDR Workshop.

The IAB contacts for the workshop will be Jari Arkko, Stephen Farrell, Ted Hardie, Christian Huitema, Melinda Shore, and Brian Trammell. Cindy Morgan will set up a mailing list for the workshop program committee and subscribe the IAB contacts to the list.

Jari Arkko will update the workshop’s call for papers with the venue information and paper deadline, and circulate it to the IAB for final review so that the call for papers can be sent by 12 April 2019.

4. “Trust in Internet Entities” Statements

Work on the IAB statements on “Trust in Internet Entities” is still in progress. This topic will be added to the IAB Retreat agenda.

5. draft-nottingham-for-the-users

The IAB discussed the thread on the IETF discussion list about finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users, and agreed that for now, work should proceed on the document as if it would be in the IAB stream. Mark Nottingham indicated that he plans to expand on the examples (with input from IAB members) as well as the justification section.

6. IAB Retreat Planning

Cindy Morgan reported that she is still waiting to get the hotel reservations link, and will pass that along as soon as she can.

Cindy Morgan will start an email thread about potential activities at the IAB retreat outside of the meeting room. Mark Nottingham will forward an earlier email he sent to Ted Hardie on the same topic.

7. IGF Day Zero High Level Track

Ted Hardie reported that Raquel Grotto had asked if the IAB had any comments on the potential Day Zero track at IGF on the theme of “The Internet in 30 years.” The IAB agreed that they did not have any feedback; Ted will follow up with Raquel.

8. Record e-vote on IANA program membership

The IAB agreed to retain Suzanne Woolf as a non-IAB member of the IANA Program.

9. Plenary Planning Program Membership

Cindy Morgan will send out an e-vote on Plenary Planning Program membership.

10. Appointment of IETF LLC representative on IRTF ANRW Steering
Committee (Executive Session)

The appointment of an IETF LLC representative to the ANRW Steering Committee was discussed in an executive session.

11. Other Business

Stephen Farrell asked about the work flow for IAB statements. He agreed to add a topic about this to the IAB retreat agenda.