Minutes of the 2021-02-03 IAB Teleconference

1. Administrivia

1.1. Attendance

Present:

• Jari Arkko
• Deborah Brungard (incoming IAB)
• Ben Campbell
• Alissa Cooper (IETF Chair)
• 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)
• Russ White (incoming IAB)
• Jiankang Yao

Regrets:

• Jeff Tantsura

Guests:

• Jay Daley (RSOC)
• Tony Hansen (RSOC)
• Eliot Lear (RFC Editor Future Development Program Chair)
• Brian Rosen (RFC Editor Future Development Program Chair)
• Peter Saint-Andre (RSOC)

Observers:

• Daniel Migault
• Greg Wood

1.2. Agenda bash & announcements

Mirja Kühlewind noted that she approved the posting of draft-iab-covid19-workshop without a call for adoption by the IAB, and proposed that the reports from future IAB workshops not require a call for adoption.

1.3. Meeting Minutes

The following meeting minutes were approved:

• 2021-01-20 business meeting – (draft submitted 2021-01-20)

The following meeting minutes remain under review:

• 2021-01-27 business meeting – (draft submitted 2021-01-27)

1.4. Action item review

Done:

• 2021-01-06: Stephen Farrell, Ben Campbell, Cullen Jennings, Mirja Kühlewind, and Jared Mauch to interview the ISOC BOT candidates.

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.
• 2021-01-13: Wes Hardaker with help from other IAB members to add characteristics of readable RFCs to https://www.iab.org/wiki/index.php/RFC_Readability.
• 2021-01-27: Mirja Kühlewind to follow up with the LAMPS WG about a wording change in the liaison statement to ISO/TC 154 before sending the liaison from the IAB.
• 2021-01-27: Mark Nottingham to draft a message to the community outlining the next steps for the Liaison Oversight Program and the IAB’s management of the IETF’s liaison function.
• 2021-01-27: Mark Nottingham to chair the IAB Chair Selection Committee.

New:

• 2021-02-03: IAB to discuss the ISOC BoT appointments via email.

2. RFC Editor Future Development Program Progress

Eliot Lear and Brian Rosen updated the IAB on the current status of the RFC Editor Future Development Program.

As of 2021-01-31, the Program mailing list had 73 subscribers and 1426 messages. 21 people have posted more than 15 messages to the list. There are 32 open issues in GitHub (https://github.com/intarchboard/rfced-future), and 6 issues on which they have rough consensus. There are currently 4 individual drafts. The group has met 7 times since 2020-05-14.

The Program seems to have agreement on the following topics:

• They seem to have consensus for an RFC Editor/Advisor
• They even have a rough idea of that person’s responsibilities
• They have a general idea that there is a working group
• They seem to agree that the WG should run roughly the same as an IETF working group
• They seem to agree that the WG can produce documents that drive strategy
• They have a general idea that there is an approval body
• With one big exception, they seem to have consensus building on the composition of the approval body

The Program does not yet have consensus on the following topics:

• Whether the RFC Editor/Advisor is a voting member on the approval body
• The exact grounds the approval body may use to reject a proposal
• Whether every WG decision needs to lead to an output document
• What support the WG would need from the LLC in developing policy
• They may need to examine the relationship between the RSE and the RPC
• Who represents the broader community?

Brian Rosen noted that there has been little willingness to compromise among some of the Program participants, which makes it difficult to reach consensus.

There is a real split in the Program about how the RFC Editor/Advisor should be viewed. Some people believe that the RFC Editor/Advisor must not vote because a contractor does not make decisions for a client. Others believe that the RFC Editor/Advisor must have a vote because they are a representative of the wider community, have distinct expertise in the field, and that would lend respect to the role from the other members of the approval body.

Eliot Lear noted that he would like to encourage RSOC members to participate in the discussion, since they have relevant experience with this.

Cullen Jennings asked what the chairs think the odds are about coming to consensus.

Brian Rosen replied that at some point, they will have to tell people that they cannot get everything they want, but for now they are letting the group talk it out to find the areas where they do have agreement.

Eliot Lear added that on some issues where there is disagreement, the people involved do seem to recognize that they need to find a compromise.

Stephen Farrell asked if there is anything that the Program Chairs need from the IAB.

Brian Rosen replied that he does not think so; while progress has been slow, progress is being made.

Mirja Kühlewind asked if the chairs had any idea what the timeline looks like for the Program completing its work. Eliot Lear replied that it is difficult to know, but that he would guess not until the end of the year.

3. Temporary RFC Series Project Manager Contract

Discussion of the Temporary RFC Series Project Manager Contract was deferred to an executive session with the RSOC on 2021-02-17.

4. Executive Session: ISOC Board of Trustees Appointments

The IAB discussed the ISOC Board of Trustees Appointments in an executive session. The discussions will continue via email.