Minutes of the 2021-01-20 IAB Teleconference
- 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.
- 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 https://www.iab.org/wiki/index.php/RFC_Readability. (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). https://www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2021/ 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. https://insights.internetsociety.org/shutdowns/4992 An encryption whitepaper, released in Nov 2021, “Traceability and Cybersecurity: Experts’ Workshop Series on Encryption in India (https:// www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/traceability-and- cybersecurity-experts-workshop-series-on-encryption-in-india/) has received good media coverage including The Economic Times: https:// brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/digital/traceability-on- digital-platforms-m[…]users-security-privacy-internet-society/80327420. In December, another encryption whitepaper was released “Understanding Encryption: The Connections to Survivor Safety” https:// www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/understanding-encryption-the- connections-to-survivor-safety/
–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 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 https://irtf.org/anrp/ # ANRW 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: https://www.iana.org/performance/ietf- statistics Other News: Working with the IETF trust on licensing language for protocol parameter registries. IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes: MEETING MINUTES – BEGIN Summary of Meeting Minutes Thursday, December 3, 2020 Virtual meeting IETF-109 1900 UTC Attendees: 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 Regrets: 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" usage 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 https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/reports/ 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 Discussion: M. Cotton: I will send out a draft next week. Annual Review of Protocol Parameter work (audit) Discussion: 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 Discussion: 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 Discussion: 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 better. 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 confusion. .ARPA Management Discussion: 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 DNSOARC. 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 Discussion: 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 Discussion: 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 properly. 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 registries. Discussion: 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 here. 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 Discussion: 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 Discussion: 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 Discussion: 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 helpful. J. Arkko: We will keep you and everyone else updated. So far, we're slowly discussing it. Pending request for removal of information Discussion: M. Cotton: We are currently reviewing a request for removal of information. IETF-109 Office Hours Wrap-Up Discussion: 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 Discussion: 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. NEW ACTION ITEMS: 2020-06 Token: M. Cotton Action Item: Send 2021 Supplemental Agreement 2020-07 Token: K. Davies Action Item: Update the .arpa draft MEETING MINUTES - END
–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 there. 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: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-meetings-2014-05-06-en 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. [octo-16] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-016-26oct20-en.pdf
–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:
- A suggestion to provide statements of interest from each candidate with the call for feedback
- 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.