Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2021-01-20

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2021»IAB Minutes 2021-01-20

Minutes of the 2021-01-20 IAB Teleconference

1. Administrivia

1.1. Attendance

  • Jari Arkko
  • Deborah Brungard (incoming IAB)
  • Ben Campbell
  • Alissa Cooper (IETF Chair)
  • Michelle Cotton (IANA Liaison)
  • Lars Eggert (incoming IETF Chair)
  • Stephen Farrell
  • Wes Hardaker
  • Cullen Jennings
  • Mirja Kühlewind (IAB Chair)
  • Zhenbin Li
  • Jared Mauch
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
  • Mark Nottingham
  • Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
  • Tommy Pauly
  • Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)
  • Alvaro Retana (IESG Liaison)
  • David Schinazi (incoming IAB)
  • Amy Vezza (IETF Secretariat)
  • Jiankang Yao
  • John Levine (Temporary RFC Series Project Manager)
  • Jeff Tantsura
  • Russ White (incoming IAB)
  • Jay Daley
  • Warren Kumari
  • Daniel Migault

1.2. Agenda bash & announcements

The IAB welcomed the incoming IAB members who will be seated at IETF 110.

1.3. Meeting Minutes

The following meeting minutes were approved:

  • 2021-01-06 business meeting – (draft submitted 2021-01-06)

The following meeting minutes remain under review:

  • 2021-01-13 business meeting – (draft submitted 2021-01-13)

1.4. Action item review

  • 2021-01-06: Cindy Morgan to schedule the ISOC BOT interviews.
In Progress:
  • 2020-10-14: IAB to review the Temporary RFC Series Project Manager contract / RFC Editor future development process. January 2021.
  • 2021-01-06: Jared Mauch to organize a side meeting on DDoS/attack protection. Due April 2021.
  • 2021-01-06: Stephen Farrell, Ben Campbell, Cullen Jennings, Mirja Kühlewind, and Jared Mauch to interview the ISOC BOT candidates.
  • 2021-01-13: Wes Hardaker to add characteristics of readable RFCs (with examples) to (Deadline: 2021-02-17)


  • 2021-01-20: Cindy Morgan to set Zhenbin Li up as a co-chair of IABOPEN in the Datatracker.
  • 2021-01-20: Jared Mauch to draft a message to the community about how to increase diversity in the candidate pools for various IAB appointments, and send it to the IAB for review.

2. Monthly Reports

2.1. ISOC Liaison Report

–Begin ISOC Liaison Report, Karen O’Donoghue–

ISOC Liaison Report – January 2021
ISOC is kicking off efforts aligned with Action Plan 2021 for projects 
related to both Growing the Internet (Building Community Networks, 
Fostering Infrastructure and Community Development, and Measuring the 
Internet) and Strengthening the Internet (Promoting the Internet Way of 
Networking, Extending Encryption, Securing Global Routing, and 
Preserving the Open Internet Model).
ISOC’s new Insights platform details the recent Ugandan Internet 
shutdown gathering data on the shutdown including economic impact along 
with reactions from the community.
An encryption whitepaper, released in Nov 2021, “Traceability and 
Cybersecurity: Experts’ Workshop Series on Encryption in India (https://
cybersecurity-experts-workshop-series-on-encryption-in-india/) has 
received good media coverage including The Economic Times:  https://
In December, another encryption whitepaper was released “Understanding 
Encryption: The Connections to Survivor Safety” https://

–End ISOC Liaison Report, Karen O’Donoghue–

2.2. IRTF Chair Report

–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

IRTF chair report to the IAB for the month ending 20 January 2021.

# Research Groups

ITU-T has a new Focus Group on autonomic network management that’s 
looking to collaborate with NMRG.
Seeking co-chairs for DINRG and CFRG.


ANRP winners for 2021 announced: Thomas Wirtgen, Rüdiger Birkner, 
Francis Y. Yan, Aqsa Kashaf, Audrey Randall, and Kevin Bock. One 
award from 2020 still to present: Sadjad Fouladi. Details at


Discussing format and potential co-chairs for 2021 workshop.

# Documents and Errata

draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites with RFC Editor
draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do awaiting IESG conflict review
draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch awaiting IESG conflict review
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g completed IRSG ballot; returned to RG
draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan completed IRSG ballot; revision needed
draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2 completed IESG conflcit review; revision needed
draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke awaiting IRTF chair
draft-irtf-panrg-questions in IRSG review
draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements in IRSG review
draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch-considerations-04 in IRSG review

CFRG chairs working to resolve other outstanding errata: resolution for 
erratum 5930 on RFC 8032 under discussion on list.

–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

2.3. IANA Liaison Report

–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

IANA Services Liaison Report – 20 January 2021
SLA Deliverables Update:
- ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for the December 2020 monthly 
statistics report, 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:
Working with the IETF trust on licensing language for protocol parameter 
IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes:
Summary of Meeting Minutes
Thursday, December 3, 2020
Virtual meeting IETF-109
1900 UTC
Jay Daley, IETF LLC Executive Director
Mirja Kuehlewind, IAB Chair
Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair
Russ Housley, IAB IANA Program
Ted Hardie, IAB IANA Program
Harald Alvestrand, IETF liaison to ICANN Board
Jari Arkko, IAB IANA Program
Kim Davies, VP, IANA Services, ICANN, President, Public Technical Identifiers (PTI)
Michelle Cotton, Protocol Parameters Engagement Sr. Manager
Sabrina Tanamal, Senior IANA Services Specialist
Suzanne Woolf, IAB IANA Program
1. Introductions and Welcome
2.  Review of Action Items from previous meetings
Action Item: 2019-01
Reach out to Glenn and give updates if there's any pushback re "IANA" 
Status: M. Cotton will start discussions after licensing topic is 
finished with Jay and the Trust
Action Item: 2019-02
Draft document to remove .int names that are no longer needed
Status:  In progress
Action Item: 2020-02
.arpa whois record
Status: Removed this action item
Action Item: 2020-03
Delivery date change for audit report
Status: Completed
Action Item: 2020-04
arpa draft to send to the wider group is in progress.
Status: Completed
Action Item: 2020-05
Inactive queue replacement
Status: Completed
3. IANA Services Activity/Performance
No impact to IANA service levels due to COVID-19. IANA staff are working 
remotely and requests are being processed as normal.
4. Update on Supplemental Agreement Deliverables
Draft 2021 Supplemental Agreement

M. Cotton: I will send out a draft next week.
Annual Review of Protocol Parameter work (audit)


M. Cotton: The report is currently being written.  We will share it with 
the group by 28 February 2021.
Request to change the delivery date for the Annual Review of Protocol 
Parameters work


M. Cotton: The letter approving this change was signed and posted on the 
ICANN website.

J. Daley: This reminded me to also post on our site, so will do so now.
5. Update on Operational Activities
Customer Service Feedback


M. Cotton: We received some feedback from the post ticket surveys.  Some 
feedback included the long expert review time for media types, 
disagreeing with an IAB appeal decision and a request to improve 
knowledge for working group chairs and area directors for the early 
allocation process.

M. Kuehlewind: The early allocation process is a little bit confusing. 
The other option maybe is to change the process and make it simpler. For 
example, instead of having the requester catch up with the AD and 
chairs, it could also be IANA going back to the IESG and say, "we 
received an early allocation request..." Would you consider that?

M. Cotton: When I updated the RFC, the idea was the working group chairs 
would be making the decision on whether or not those early allocations 
are ready and that there's consensus. We're open to ideas of how we can 
improve that process, I'm happy to spin a new document to make it 

M. Kuehlewind: I don't think it's a huge issue. I guess the authors came 
to IANA and wanted early allocations, right?

M. Cotton: Are you referring to the one feedback we got?

M. Kuehlewind: Yes.

M. Cotton: I'm not sure if it was an author, a working group chair, or 
an expert. I'll have to check. But when we did the working group chairs 
call, everybody seems to understand the process. I think the only thing 
that might help is having some type of form that they can fill out and 
put in a draft. I still think it's the working group chair's call to 
make that decision.

M. Kuehlewind: I find the process always confusing because if we do IESG 
allocation, it's the whole IESG that decides, but for early allocation, 
I think the process is only one AD can decide, which was a problem for 
ports registry at some point, but I mean this is a general problem. 
Maybe providing a form would be something easy to change and reduce 

 .ARPA Management


K. Davies: The last time we met, our marching orders were to raise 
awareness of this draft. I think we were successful in that regard. We 
received requests to present to a number of different communities. I 
presented to the ICANN Board, RSACC and SSACC, and a couple of other 
forums. I think it's now had a lot of eyes on it. Once people 
understood, it felt that it was a good thing to do. There was some 
hesitation based on the title of the document, but once the content was 
explained, people were OK with the approach and supported it. The 
current status is I have a few editorial feedback and need to update the 
draft text. I'll probably do that in the next few days.

J. Arkko: In the spring, we also gave an opportunity for the IAB and 
IANA program to review it, and we got some feedback. I'm not sure if 
it's been to DNSOP, Kim, do you know?

K. Davies: I believe Suzanne shared it with them. I know it went to 

J. Arkko: I agree with the next steps here.

M. Cotton: Jari, do you have to do an official Last Call with the IAB, 
or was that already done?

J. Arkko: No, that's not done. If this is an IAB document, then the 
process is IAB will consider if this is good enough to go out for 
community review. The IAB will ask the community if this is something 
the community wants the IAB to take on as an IAB document. There are two 
rounds with the community. Mirja, anything to add?

M. Kuehlewind: No, you described it perfectly. We could do this in 4 
weeks, but we have two more calls.

M. Cotton: Just so I'm clear on the next process for this, you guys are 
going to get the 02 version, and Jari will begin the shepherding process 
through the IAB and whatever needs to be done there. We'll wait to see 
what the whole IAB does.

J. Arkko: I don't expect the IAB review to be significant. They will 
probably say yes. Timing question, I think we're meeting next week if we 
can get it done. Traditionally, Christmas time hasn't been a great time 
to ask the community to do reviews unless you want to get no comments.

M. Cotton: Are you thinking maybe in the new year you'll send the 
community review.

J. Arkko: If a new version can be turned around really quickly, then 
maybe we can get it to the community before Christmas.

M. Kuehlewind: I mentioned four weeks because that's kind of the 
minimum, but is there any urgency here? Otherwise, I think we start the 
process in January. That's probably the best thing to do.

J. Arkko: Fair enough. I fully agree. I don't think there's urgency 
unless there's something I'm not aware of. But if the new version 
appears early next week, we can probably start earlier.

K. Davies: I'll try to get the revision out in the next few days, but 
please don't hesitate to delay it to January. This is not time critical.

Quality Assurance Review Process


M. Cotton: IANA will be doing a 1-year review in February and will share 
the results with this group as part of IETF-110.
Time Zone Database


K. Davies: We've been having ongoing discussions with Paul about 
migration, more recently he's been more open to migrating, but the 
discussion continues. We now have a secondary TZ coordinator in place, 
and over the last few months, he's been coming up to speed on the 
internal dynamic. One open question, currently Paul signs releases with 
his personal PGP key, and we're discussing an improved mechanism there. 
In sum, we're tidying up the relationship here and making sure that IANA 
is in a good position so that Paul and Tim can do their job and, if Paul 
or Tim were replaced, the subsequent TZ coordinator could do their job 

R. Housley: Nice job. Hope it wraps up this year or early next year.

Updates on Other Misc. Operational Activities
License wording topic for material in IANA protocol parameter 


H. Alvestrand: As far as I can tell, this is a difference of opinion and 
what precedence in legal terms actually say. It's not a disagreement on 
what we should do, it's a disagreement on what the facts are. So, I'm 
hoping that we can agree on that eventually.

T. Hardie: Is there a driving issue here? Did somebody come and say that 
I can't use it in the way I want to because your license prohibits me 
from or is this entirely an exercise of precaution.

M. Cotton: Throughout the years, we would periodically get inquiries 
asking, can we use this information on the IANA website, what are the 
licensing terms. And we would respond that this is in the public domain 
with some other information, but I think last year Mark Nottingham sent 
a message to the IESG asking what the licensing terms would be. That's 
the point that it kind of escalated to we should really do something 

R. Housley: Over the years, we've had various open-source developers ask 
this question over and over, and they want to make sure they have a 
clear license to include things in their code.

J. Daley: We get one or two over the last year say their company lawyers 
are very reluctant to include it without a clear license statement.

T. Hardie: I want to be cautious here because some of the license terms 
are common in US open-source things don't exist in other jurisdictions 
because they rely on legal construct which is not present in those 
jurisdictions. When the discussion is happening, I think it might be 
useful for it to be abstracted up a level so that if there's a 
lightweight way to turn them over to the Trust and for the Trust to 
grant those rights on an individual basis.

J. Daley: The Trust has considered that the different legal frameworks. 
What the Trust has settled on is create a CCO that specifically states 
in it without asserting that we own these things. If the country's 
jurisdiction means that we own these things by default, then we'll 
release them to the public domain as much as we're able to do. So, it's 
a really carefully worded thing. The concern I had when I read the 
response from ICANN is it felt as if ICANN was...ownership of some 
elements of things, and that's where I think it got scary, that's the 
bit that still needs to be discussed by the Trust and ICANN.

T. Hardie: OK, thanks for the clarification.

K. Davies: I think our lawyers had the same response in regards that the 
language seems to suggest that we conveyed materials to the IETF Trust 
that hadn't explicitly done so, which is not to say that we're not on 
the same page about the end goal here. But the question then becomes, if 
it's not clear who owns the full gamut of things where we want to put in 
the public domain, how does ICANN simultaneously waive its interest in 
this material as well. This is obviously a legal discussion that I'm not 
going to pretend to have complete expertise over, but the important 
thing is representatives from both sides are hopefully getting together 
in the short term to come to a resolution.

J. Daley: I don't think anybody here thought that ICANN had any rights 
in it. I was surprised to think that might be the case. This is now 
being discussed.
Annual IANA Engagement Survey


M. Cotton: The annual survey for IANA Engagement just closed.  We will 
share the results in the new year.
6. Other Topics for Discussion
Registry Workflow System Updates


M. Cotton:  This project is still moving forward, however slowed down 
due to Covid and other priorities.  We are currently documenting a 
roadmap for the next 6 months.  Still plan on deploying it for use for 
PEN requests in 2021.

M. Cotton: With a new Technical Director on board, this project will 
have more resources.
IAB's IANA Program Updates


J. Arkko: The context here is you may have seen the IAB is sort of 
restructuring its entire system of programs. We will have technical 
programs and administrative support groups. The IANA program falls under 
the latter category.

M. Kuehlewind: I think we should review the membership at some point in 
the program and update the webpage because it's really outdated. 
Starting a discussion within this group or within the program would be 

J. Arkko: We will keep you and everyone else updated. So far, we're 
slowly discussing it.
Pending request for removal of information


M. Cotton: We are currently reviewing a request for removal of 
IETF-109 Office Hours Wrap-Up


M. Cotton: Office hours were not too busy.  We attribute this to the 
timezone challenges. 

A. Cooper: One note on Gather, I think we're going to have a smaller 
space that stays open in between the meetings.
7. Proposed Meeting Schedule


M. Cotton: We will continue to have our meeting 1-2 weeks after the IETF 
until we can meet in person again.  Other meetings will be scheduled in 
between as needed.
Token: M. Cotton
Action Item: Send 2021 Supplemental Agreement
Token: K. Davies
Action Item: Update the .arpa draft

–End IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

2.4. RFC Editor Liaison Report

–Begin Temporary RFC Series Project Manager Report, John Levine–

Three years ago Heather [Flanagan] arranged for two external 
organizations, the Computer History Museum and the Swedish national 
library, to archive RFCs. The CHM confirmed that they are archiving 
RFCs.  We haven't heard back from Sweden so will try some other contacts 

We're continuing to work on the annual RPC review, summarizing the 
comments from the monthly author surveys, and collecting other material.

Our informal group, Henrik Levkowetz, Peter St Andre, Robert Sparks, 
that is to review and manage updates to the XML grammar will be meeting 
every week for the next month to try to make some progress.

After we nail down the final definition of the v3 XML syntax, the tRSE 
would like to change the XML in the published RFCs to match the final 
syntax and republish them, after ensuring that the rendered text does 
not change other than white space.  This might be controversial so we 
plan to start socializing the plan and see what concerns people have.

Finally, the [Temporary RFC Series Project Manager] notes that the RFC 
Editor future development is on the agenda.  He's planning for the 
contract to end on the agreed date of June 30, but would be willing to 
consider extending it if need be.

–End Temporary RFC Series Project Manager Report, John Levine–

–Begin RSOC Chair Report, Sarah Banks–

Updates from the RSOC are pretty brief, as we're fairly uneventful these 
days. We've reinstated the current SLA, as previously described, with 
the presumption of measuring how things proceed and readjusting if we 
need to. The assumptions here were that the v3 tools are in as steady a 
state as we're going to get, and the work load is manageable. This also 
assumes the current head count the RPC has.  This decision was reviewed 
by the RSOC based on input from Sandy (representing the RPC) and John 
Levine (representing the temp RFC Series editor).  Separately, the RSOC 
has organized a committee to work on stabilizing v3 format tags, and is 
working through selecting a new chair.

–End RSOC Chair Report, Sarah Banks–

2.6. RSSAC Liaison Report

–Begin RSSAC Liaison Report, Daniel Migault–

2021-01-05 RSSAC teleconference

Minutes from previous meeting have been approved and are available here:

RSSAC had to provide recommendation for fellowships (Fellowship Program 
Mentor and Fellowship Selection Committee).  Choosing one candidate 
among well qualified candidates is always à hard task. It was suggested 
that more guidance on the selection’s criteria were to be discussed for 
future selection. 

RSSAC is discussing statistical prediction of failure of the root server 
system. The motivation is mostly driven by setting an early warning 
system - see OCTO16 [octo-16]. My personal opinion is that the work 
requires expertise in statistics and should not be started before we 
have it. Others believe that we may start analyzing the data that 
already exist with à more operational - and maybe subjective - approach.   

Note that RSSAC already developed some metrics (RSSAC 0047) and there 
may not be able to measure something more relevant. In addition failures 
like those due to scalability of the root zone may not even be measured. 
The discussion is being deferred to the mailing list. 

ICANN is defining à strategy to restart meetings. The strategy is 
expected to be published for public comments. I am planning to have à 
look at the current draft and comment. 


–Begin RSSAC Liaison Report, Daniel Migault–

3. IAB Open Meeting at IETF 110

Zhenbin Li agreed to co-chair the IABOPEN session at IETF 110 with Mirja Kühlewind.

4. Application-Aware Networking (APN)

Mirja Kühlewind noted that during the BOF coordination call for IETF 110, a couple of people suggested that application-aware networking could be a topic for the IAB. She asked whether the IAB had any interest in trying to organize something like a workshop or a BOF on the topic.

The IAB agreed that more discussion was needed in a smaller group before trying to organize a workshop or BOF.

Zhenbin Li suggested that it would be helpful to have documents that summarize the past work on APN, as well as defining the requirements and problem statements.

Tommy Pauly suggested that the IAB could work on a higher-level document that talks about the relationships between networks, applications, and users.

5. IAB Appointment Processes

Mirja Kühlewind noted that the call for feedback on the ISOC Board of Trustees candidates resulted in two comments about the process itself:

  1. A suggestion to provide statements of interest from each candidate with the call for feedback
  2. A suggestion to extend the call for nomination to increase diversity

The IAB discussed whether to ask candidates for future IAB-appointed positions for statements of interest that could be made public.

Wes Hardaker said that he thought that having public candidate statements as part of future appointment processes might be a good idea.

Mirja Kühlewind observed that having public candidate statements is more appropriate for some appointments than others; it would make more sense to have them for positions where the role is more strategic than it would for a role that is about technical expertise.

Cullen Jennings noted that doing so might invite lobbying and endorsements on the mailing lists, and might affect who is willing to volunteer for a position.

Stephen Farrell said that he did not think such a change should be made without consulting the community first, as it might also affect how the NomCom and the IESG make appointments.

The IAB also discussed whether to re-open the call for nominations for the ISOC Board of Trustees appointment, but decided against it due to the available time frame and the large number of current nominees. However, the IAB agreed that looking at ways to increase the diversity of future candidate pools is something worth looking at.

Jared Mauch agreed to draft a message to the community about how to increase diversity in the candidate pools for various IAB appointments, and send it to the IAB for review.

Alissa Cooper noted that the message should acknowledge the underlying lack of diversity in the participant base.

Wes Hardaker asked whether Jay Daley had any external resources about diversity.

Jay Daley replied that he could do some research to try and determine whether the lack of diversity is an issue with the potential candidate pool or with the appointment process itself.

Alissa Cooper noted that there are several ongoing discussions about diversity and inclusivity happening in the IETF in general.

Mirja Kühlewind suggested that diversity be raised as a joint topic with the IESG.

6. Next IAB meeting

The next IAB meeting will be on 2021-01-27 at 2130 UTC.