Minutes of the 2019-09-18 IAB Teleconference
- Harald Alvestrand (ICANN Liaison)
- Jari Arkko
- Alissa Cooper (IETF Chair)
- Michelle Cotton (IANA Liaison)
- Stephen Farrell
- Ted Hardie (IAB Chair)
- Zhenbin Li
- Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
- Erik Nordmark
- Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
- Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)
- Melinda Shore
- Jeff Tantsura
- Martin Thomson
- Brian Trammell
- Amy Vezza (IETF Secretariat)
- Heather Flanagan (RFC Editor Liaison)
- Wes Hardaker
- Christian Huitema
- Mirja Kühlewind (IESG Liaison)
- Mark Nottingham
- Greg Wood
- Éric Vyncke
- Suresh Krishnan
- Alvaro Retana
- Martin Vigoureux
1.2. Agenda bash & announcements
An item on the Independent Submissions Editor appointment process was added to the agenda.
1.3. Meeting Minutes
The following meeting minutes were approved:
- 2019-08-28 business meeting – (draft submitted 2019-08-29)
- 2019-09-04 business meeting – (draft submitted 2019-09-04)
1.4. Action Item Review
- 2019-08-28: Heather Flanagan, Ted Hardie, and Cindy Morgan to set up a series of three (or so) virtual meetings to gather community feedback for the process. The virtual meetings should be spread to get the greatest number of time zones covered.
- 2019-09-04: Cindy Morgan to start thread for IAB members to sign up to cover the interim meetings to discuss the RFC Editor Model.
- 2019-08-28: Ted Hardie to request a session at the Singapore IETF (106) for Heather Flanagan to chair to discuss the process for the future of the RFC Series.
- 2019-07-21: Alissa Cooper to notify Ted Hardie & Stephen Farrell when the final LLC COI policy is published; Ted/Stephen to adjust the text for the IAB and send it out for an e-vote.
- 2019-05-17: Christian Huitema to figure out how to measure the effectiveness and impact of the work of the IETF.
- 2019-05-17: Ted Hardie to write blog post inviting the community to come to the IAB with new work proposal.
- 2019-02-06: Melinda Shore to take the pen on protocol designer version of “Trust in Internet Entities” Statement.
- 2019-09-18: Martin Thomson to post draft-iab version of ESCAPE workshop report.
- 2019-09-18: Cindy Morgan to send draft-iab-escape-report out for community review.
- 2019-09-18: Erik Nordmark to work with Cindy Morgan to set up a mailing list to discuss architectural guidance around (local) flexibility when using layer 3 dataplane technology in general and IPv6 specifically.
- 2019-09-18: IAB to discuss potential DOH workshop on the mailing list and identify chair(s) and a Program Committee.
2. Monthly Reports
2.1. IRTF Chair Report
–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
IRTF chair report to the IAB for the month encoding 9 September 2019. # Research Groups Ongoing discussion with proponents of the SMART activity about possible future IRTF work. Limited progress. Minor charter update to COIN - no significant changes. MAPRG is looking for an additional co-chair. # ANRP Blog post published re ANRP at IETF 105 (https://www.ietf.org/blog/anrp-ietf105/). ANRP winner for IETF 106 will be Weiteng Chen (UC Riverside) for "Off- path TCP exploit: how wireless routers can jeopardize your secrets" (USENIX Security 2018). Had also planned to make an award to Shehar Bano (UCL), but this has been deferred to IETF 108 to fit with childcare availability. # ANRW ANRW 2020 will be chaired by Mirja Kühlewind and Roland van Rijswijk- Deij. Initial planning call scheduled for early September. # Documents and Errata draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines completed IRSG final poll, started IESG conflict review. draft-irtf-icnrg-disaster is in IRSG final poll. draft-irtf-icnrg-terminology is in IRSG review. draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2 is in IRTF chair review, waiting update from authors. # Other Update website to use correct ACM Authorizer links to previous ANRW papers to ensure open access; consolidate IRTF policy documents. Discussions with Grenville Armitage re diversity travel grant sponsorship. Discussions with IETF Executive Director re 2020 budget Discussions with ISE about cross-stream RFC status changes and IANA registry policies. Discussions with IETF Trust to clarify licensing terms for IRTF logo. Discussions with Tools Team to add datatracker support for IRSG at-large members.
–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
2.2. ICANN Liaison Report
–Begin ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–
ICANN report - up to September 13, 2019 This report contains ICANN matters observed by the IETF liaison to the Board for the period of July 4 2019 to September 13, 2019. Organizational matters - Board leadership - the board has decided to put forward Maarten Bottermann (Nomcom-selected, from the Netherlands) as chair when Cherine Chalaby steps down in November, and to put forward Leon Sanchez (ALAC-selected, from Mexico) as vice chair. More details in the blog post. - Strategic planning - the board and staff are working on creating an operational plan to match the 5-year strategic plan. It’s been decided not to come up with a 5-year budget, but some guidance can be had from projections from revenues and fixed costs; the amount of money likely to be available for “new projects” is a single-digit percentage of the overall budget. - Organizational effectiveness - Brian Cute is driving this process towards something resembling an action plan to be discussed in Montreal in November, with eight main “bullet points” on his list. - Reviews - it seems that reviews would be more useful if they were faster and more focused. Some ideas (like having reviews have timeframes) have been fielded. No new reviews have reported out (AFAIK) in the time covered by this report. Hot topics - .AMAZON - the board has rejected the request for reconsideration from Colombia on its decision to go forward with the .amazon redelegation. Processing now continues, with the Public Interest Committments that Amazon inc. has proposed being posted publicly. - .EU in Greek (.ευ) - after approx 10 years of work, the board has approved this delegation. Hopefully this is no longer a “hot topic”. - EPDP aka GDPR accomodation - the EPDP Phase 2 working group met in Los Angeles for 3 days - it continues to work on definitions for a mechanism whereby ICANN can set up a mechanism for accredited access to non-public registrant information. The techincal parts (use of RDAP) are pretty simple; the organizational and political parts are not. - DOH and DOT - interest continues. - DNS Risk Matrix - a first version of the list of “perceived risks”, generated by ICANN’s OCTO staff, has been delivered to the board. The SSAC has also started an activity on describing the risk environment of the DNS, taking a somewhat less operationally focused approach. - RSSAC / Root Operators - this work seems to be going forward as planned. No plan changes announced; the report on public comments reported that comments were generally supportive (and not very numerous). The IAB’s comments were duly noted. - DNS abuse - you can still get lively disagreements when asking “what constitutes abuse” - spam being one of the things people don’t agree on, while botnet command-and-control seems to be something people agree to call “abusive”. ICANN Contractual Compliance has asked registries what they do to check for abuse, and what their results are; the form of answers has varied quite a bit making it hard to summarize, but most have at least answered the question. Note that this does not include CC domains or .com, who have no obligation to report such findings. - Universal Acceptance - no news, I’m just keeping it in the list.
–End ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–
2.3. IANA Liaison Report
–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–
IANA Services Liaison Report – 18 September 2019 SLA Deliverables Update: - ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for August 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: https://www.iana.org/ performance/ietf-statistics Other News: Conducting the Annual IANA Services Engagement Survey. Invites will be sent out this week. This survey focuses more on engagement activities as opposed to the post-ticket survey which focuses on performance of processing individual requests. IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes: MEETING MINUTES – BEGIN Summary of Meeting Minutes Monday, July 22, 2019 Lunch Meeting at IETF-105, Montreal 1200 Local Time, 1600 UTC Attendees: Jari Arkko, IAB IANA Program Alexey Melnikov, IESG Ted Hardie, IAB Chair Suzanne Woolf, IAB IANA Program Russ Housley, IAB IANA Program Harald Alvestrand, IETF liaison to ICANN Board Kim Davies, VP, IANA Services, ICANN, President, Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) Michelle Cotton, Protocol Parameters Engagement Sr. Manager Amanda Baber, Lead IANA Services Specialist Shaunte Anderson, IANA Services staff Regrets: Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair Portia Wenze-Danley, IETF LLC Executive Director, Interim 1. Introductions and Welcome Welcomed Shaunte Anderson as a guest to the lunch meeting. This is her first IETF meeting and she is learning about the work the IANA team does for the IETF Community. 2. Review of Action Items M. Cotton: Gather information about .arpa Still in process. K. Davies/M. Cotton: .arpa draft In progress: 80 percent complete; should have something soon. Ultimately this will go to the IAB, but this group will look at it first. Coordinating with Verisign to make sure the idea works (leakage issue). 3. IANA Services Activity 1479+ requests. 4 new registries added. 4. Update on Deliverables 2019 supplemental agreement waiting to be signed until the reassignment of the MoU to the LLC is complete. No concerns at ICANN re: MoU. Should have update by end of week. Action Item: M. Cotton will check with Portia as to when supplemental agreement can be signed. 5. Update on Projects How Did We Do (HDWD) survey: 59.7 percent response rate, 88.8 percent satisfied rate. K. Davies: we want to record how many were denied by policy (e.g. their port request was not approved). Also issues w/ people accidentally clicking the wrong button. We're following up with dissatisfied requesters. Since this is new, working on how to report and how to segment (process, policy, service). A. Melnikov: this is better than once a year. Shared dissatisfied comments concerning ports, media types, TLS. A. Melnikov: regarding media types, people wonder about encoding considerations. A. Baber: form makes it multiple choice, etc M. Cotton: maybe the form can be improved to provide more information beyond template. M. Cotton: tracking down J. Salowey to ask more questions about the TLS request. Annual survey: We're not sending the requesters an annual survey. IESG, IAB, people in engagement positions will still get this survey, but the questions will be focused more on specific engagement issues. On average, in past, we've had ~ four IESG members respond. A. Melnikov: add management item to telechat asking them to respond. Registry Workflow System Project: Making good progress internally. Working on reporting requirements. Using information gathered at last meeting as a base. One important piece of work from last few months: we've noticed similar terms that mean the same thing as headings of columns, such as "Contact" and "Reference" with additional wording. We're going through and trying to see where we can consolidate. We're not going to just change them -- we're going to consult with ADs, chairs, etc. Going forward, we're going to try to steer authors towards standard language. T. Hardie: good to get WG chairs on board early, as early feedback to authors. Get them standardized language. Send to WG chairs' mailing list. M. Cotton: also trying to consolidate references, harmonize registration procedures. Will take time, work with ADs, WG chairs, authors. Working with authorization models, working on user data w/GDPR. Hoping to process PEN requests by end of year (current system can't produce stats), then shift to additional FCFS registries. Should have good update on using it for PEN by November. .arpa: K. Davies did some drafting before, shelved it -- for variety of reasons, we understand that .arpa needs attention. Will share draft with group, perhaps 00. crux: separate operation from the root servers historically, caused challenge for root operators T. Hardie: IAB says it was delegated to us so that we could delegate things -- we are seeing more of these requests. two drafts currently, in early state, a tbd.arpa being used as a canary for DoH. This needs changes. there's another from Rosenberg, Cullen, others asking for changes to how e164.arpa, but if it's deployed it will be in another domain -- desire to move it away from the root servers is timely, as the root servers might find some of this work too risky or that might create a load that's significant even in a root server environment. (Michelle: did he say first is going to BoF? second is going to dispatch). First draft: they may want broad flat tree of many subdomains, hey may want special-use lookup where queries go to pseudodomain. T. Hardie: keep Jari in the loop. M. Cotton: requested statistics too late. Working on this, will send separate email as we're working on this draft. Kim; Do we want to kill iris? T. Hardie: it has more than one deployment method, and it's only the one involved with IP address space that's getting no use. We don't know whether it's useful for the domain name space, so we don't want to deprecate. K. Davies, M. Cotton: it's not bothering us. We'll keep getting the servers moved as the priority. T. Hardie: keep it on the list. 6. Discussion Items Budgeting for FY2021: We have to do PTI budget before ICANN budget. Now's the time when we do consultations with stakeholder groups (SOs and AdvoisoRegistry Stakeholder Group, IAB, RIRs)-- do you have requests that have budget implications? Bylaws state that we have to do this. K. Davies: new priorities, shifting priorities, let us know. Aug/Sep: draft a budget, then come back to you for additional reviews. More substantive conversation will be later. But if there's anything you think we'll involve costs 12-24 months from now, put it on our radar. Email, talk to Michelle, etc. K. Davies: we'll do a webinar in early August for the different SOs and ACs, which can include IAB and IESG. RZMS, management system, IANA website significant refresh, variant TLDs, KSK Jari: from my perspective, everyone is happy, things are stable. I think your assumptions are basically correct. Licenses: We get inquiries about using registry data. Our counsel is seeking outside counsel: pros and cons, what are our choices, etc. Other issue: use of work "IANA." Language says we're not supposed to use the word by itself. We use different terms in different contexts. We want to revisit IPR statement about use of "IANA" at some point and either add some language saying that we're using it in good faith. T. Hardie: this group can't change that, you have to go to the trustees -- use the CCG. K. Davies: we just want the IPR requirements map to reality of how we use terminology. We don't want to be in breach of our contract. Action Item: M. Cotton to speak to R. Housley about a plan, but it doesn't have to be right now. Update on Github repository: We have private one, but we're going to add a public one for experts who want to use it as a method of using requests. K. Davies: those who have requested Github workflows want to use some of that tooling specifically. J. Arkko: is this for experts or anyone? M. Cotton: this is for experts reviewing and discussing requests. We've been working with Mark Nottingham. J. Arkko: there are multiple uses to think about. K. Davies: We have a license, so we can make repositories private. Mark said he'd be more comfortable using an IANA-owned repo rather than one outside IANA. We know there's a demand to use Git. And this way we'd be able to see history of commits, etc. M. Cotton: no official process changes -- the experts would still be emailing us their approved change requests. 8126bis update: M. Cotton meeting with B. Leiba about a revision she has. Talking about calibrating language as we're looking at it in registry workflow system process. Ports Group Lunch: For the first time since RFC 6335, we're going to meet with Transport ADs and port experts. (Some will be remote, including lead expert Joe Touch.) How is mailing list working, percentage of rejections vs assignments. ADs want to survey all experts on criteria, are we too strict, etc. TZ Database: A. Melnikov: suggestion on mailing list (from calext) to encourage more use of IANA website for downloading -- imagine millions of IoT devices downloading directly from IANA. Working on figuring out which parties want what. T. Hardie: Why calext? doesn't seem to be covered by charter. If this gets planted, it needs a protocol development effort outside of calext. A. Melnikov: Discussion is taking place in calext -- it just started last week -- but it will not become a calext item. M. Cotton: We get a lot of questions about it, or people write to the mailing list who shouldn't. looking at IANA as a point of triage -- what should we answer, how can we point people in the right direction so that they don't bother the list. K. Davies: Have been discussing informally with Paul -- trying to move politics off the list so they can work on academic questions. He does encourage people to use his private github respotry for pull requests .... we want an IANA role key to be signing releases, once we have github repository we'll try to bring this in, we want to make sure there isn't anything that can't be transferred to the next maintainer. M. Cotton: Could IESG designate trainee? T. Hardie: First ask Paul if there is anybody he is already mentoring or who he is already working with that could help if he goes on vacation for example. Action Item: M. Cotton/K. Davies: Ask Paul about back-up Staffing changes: David Prangnell's departure, our technical director is leaving. 7. Informal Meeting Schedule In Person July 22, 2019 (Montreal) Phone September 23, 2019 (if needed) In person November 18, 2019 (Singapore) Phone January 27, 2020 (if needed) In person March 23, 2020 (Vancouver) 8. Summary of New Action Items Action Item: M. Cotton will check with Portia as to when supplemental agreement can be signed. Action Item: M. Cotton to speak to R. Housley about a plan regarding IANA language and CCG assistance. Action Item: M. Cotton/K. Davies: Ask Paul about back-up regarding TZ Database coordination
–End IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–
2.4. RFC Editor Liaison Report
–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–
RSE * RFC Format status Heather Flanagan, RSE, is actively drafting the -bis document for RFC 7991, which will describe the v3 XML vocabulary as implemented. See also the RPC section below. * Fifty Years of RFCs Draft-iab-fiftyyears has been approved by the IAB for publication and has entered the RFC Editor queue. * RPC resourcing The IETF LLC has approved a short-term increase of 2 FTE for the RPC through the end of 2019; those positions were filled in August. * RFC Editor Function discussions Heather Flanagan, RSE, will be facilitating three virtual interim meetings and a face to face meeting during IETF 106 to discuss how to have the conversation about the future of the RFC Editor model with the Internet community. Specifically, she seeks to gather consensus on: Who manages the community discussion? Who needs to be invited to the table? Who calls consensus? The meetings are scheduled for Friday, 13 September 2019 at 16:00 UTC, Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 13:00 UTC, and Friday, 18 October 2019 at 02:00 UTC RPC * https://www.rfc-editor.org/report-summary/ Q3 2019 notes: The RFC Editor is transitioning to xml2rfc v3 this quarter, with actual transition occurring in September. In preparation, the RPC continues to familiarize itself with the v3 vocabulary and what makes a “good” XMLv3 file, report bugs to the developer, update procedures, and update our database and code base. For additional details, see the mail about the transition and the RSE wiki. * Clusters, clusters, clusters… A majority of cluster 238 entered the queue, which means 35 documents (over 1000 pages) were released into the edit queue at one time. This is the main cause for the spike in the queue; see Figures 2 and 3. In addition, the RPC is actively working through a majority of cluster 340. 12 of the 15 documents are being processed. RSOC (in general): * SLA - SLA recommendation was shared with the IAB and approved. Portia has shared the timeline as a part of the response to the AMS notice about the SLA, and AMS has acknowledged receipt. The RSOC will continue to work against the milestones on the SLA. * New SOW/comment period - The SOW comment period closes September 14th. The RSOC will review the feedback and expects to share feedback with the IAB ahead of sharing it with the community. We don't have a firm timeline for that yet, but we'll refine that process and share the updated doc or significant deviation with the IAB as quickly as we can. We recognize there is a tight timeline in place here.
–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, Heather Flanagan–
The IAB agreed to adopt draft-thomson-escape-report as an Informational document on the IAB stream. Martin Thomson will post an updated version of the document as draft-iab-escape-report.
The IAB agreed to send draft-iab-escape-report out for community review. Cindy Morgan will send the community review message.
4. RSE and RFC Editor Model Next Steps
Cindy Morgan reported that the first of the sessions to discuss the process for revising the RFC Editor Model occurred on 2019-09-13. The next sessions are scheduled for 2019-10-01 and 2019-10-18. Stephen Farrell, Wes Hardaker, and Ted Hardie signed up to cover the session on 2019-10-01. Wes Hardaker (tentatively) and Melinda Shore signed up to cover the session on 2019-10-18.
Ted Hardie asked the IAB how long the session at IETF 106 to discuss the process for revisiting the RFC Editor Model should be. After a brief discussion, the IAB agreed that the session should be 90 minutes. Ted will coordinate with Heather Flanagan to request that session.
5. Architectural quirks of segment routing
Guests: Suresh Krishnan, Alvaro Retana, Martin Vigoureux
Ted Hardie noted that the IAB received an email from Fernando Gont noting that some of the work in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01 related to SRv6 has major implications for the architecture.
Martin Vigoureux replied that some of the functions in the draft conflict with RFC 8200, “Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, in that they propose to insert extension headers in the middle of the path. The authors of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming have proposed removing that section from the draft. They also proposed reviving a draft in 6MAN to formally standardize extension header insertion into the middle of a path. Martin said that he believes this addresses Fernando Gont’s concerns.
Alvaro Retana said that when RFC 8200 was published, there were discussions about how there are differences in behavior in closed environments; things inside a network might work differently than they do end-to-end. Suresh Krishnan sent email at the time saying that RFC 8200 didn’t preclude future work on header insertion. Alvaro noted that architecture of the Internet is changing with things like consolidation and the death of transit.
Suresh Krishnan added that he expects that similar issues will continue to arise because there is not a good understanding of the issues surrounding things like MTU and error handling.
Erik Nordmark asked if there will be an effort towards standardizing in-flight header insertion.
Suresh Krishnan replied that it will depend on whether there is a way to describe how to do it safely.
The IAB agreed to set up a mailing list to discuss architectural guidance around (local) flexibility when using layer 3 dataplane technology in general and IPv6 specifically. Erik Nordmark will work with Cindy Morgan to set up the list. The list will initially be closed; it will be opened once there is a problem statement.
6. Possible DOH Workshop
Martin Thomson noted that there are two options for a workshop on this topic. One would explore the interactions among different security functions in use with DNS, and the other would explore the impact of recent trends of moving DNS query infrastructure to one or few central providers, such as what happens when browsers by default contact globally configured DNS resolver.
Alissa Cooper noted that the IESG is working on charter text for a WG that would work on this topic. Brian Trammell asked if the IAB should delay issuing a call for papers on this until after the WG is chartered; after a brief discussion, the IAB agreed not to wait for that.
Discussions about the potential workshop will continue via email, with the IAB working to identify chairs and a program committee for the workshop.
7. Next IAB Meeting
The IAB agreed that they did not need to hold a meeting on 2019-09-25. The next IAB meeting will be on 2019-10-02.
8. Independent Submissions Editor Appointment Process
The IAB declined to reopen the process for appointing the Independent Submissions Editor.
9. Executive Session: Appointment of New IRSG At-Large Members
The appointment of At-Large Members of the IRSG was discussed in an executive session.