Minutes of the 2021-04-21 IAB Teleconference
- Jari Arkko
- Deborah Brungard
- Ben Campbell
- Michelle Cotton (IANA Liaison)
- Lars Eggert (IETF Chair)
- Wes Hardaker
- Cullen Jennings
- Mirja Kühlewind (IAB Chair)
- John Levine (Temporary RFC Series Project Manager)
- Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
- Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
- Tommy Pauly
- Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)
- David Schinazi
- Amy Vezza (IETF Secretariat)
- Martin Vigoureux (IESG Liaison)
- Russ White
- Jiankang Yao
- Zhenbin Li
- Jared Mauch
- Spencer Dawkins
- Adrian Farrel
- Russ Housley
- Eliot Lear
- Scott Mansfield
- Dan Romascanu
- Daniel Migault
- Greg Wood
2. Next steps on liaison coordination
Spencer Dawkins, Adrian Farrel, Russ Housley, Eliot Lear, Scott Mansfield, and Dan Romascanu joined the IAB to provide some context about the former IAB Liaison Oversight Program.
Circa 2012-2016, the Liaison Oversight Program was used for coordination among liaison managers for various reasons, like:
- Strategizing on issues that might cut across organizations
- Sharing experiences and best practices
- Sharing advice on handling difficult situations
- OpenStand advocacy initiative for voluntary community-driven SDOs
The Liaison Oversight Program also helped with tool development and management on what was needed to create, manage, process, and transmit liaison statements.
The Liaison Oversight Program also:
- Provided training and mentorship to help onboard new liaison managers.
- Helped with process development and evolution of operative RFCs and similar documents at other organizations (e.g. RFCs 6756, 7241)
- Reviewed liaison statements (what was sent, what was pending)
Additionally, the Liaison Oversight Program provided intelligence to the IAB as to where challenges and opportunities arose and would often fold IETF best practices into their positions in various organizations. The unstated mission of the program was to protect and advance the Internet architecture by facilitating the board’s relationship with others.
Eliot Lear noted that the IETF does not have easy access into some places where others do, such as:
- The World Trade Organization
- USG delegations
- The European Commission
- Some other governments
- Other industry delegations
- Private industry fora that influence governments
- Invited research fora
There are several examples of where it was useful to have broader coordination and available backchannels to help, such as:
- T-MPLS/MPLS-TP (G.8113.1, G.8113.2) at the ITU
- IPvWhatever in ISO
- Crypto Algorithms at ISO and the ITU
- Promotion and proper use of YANG
- Alternate versions of TCP, IPSEC, and other protocols
- BGP Policy
- Geographic addressing
- Traffic charging
Russ Housley and Eliot Lear both noted that it is the informal relationships that do a lot of the work in these cases.
Spencer Dawkins said that when it comes to liaison relationships, no news is not necessarily good news; people on both sides need to be aware and engaged. The IAB needs to have a network of friends (who themselves have friends) to help out when new situations arise.
Mirja Kühlewind noted that coordination has still been happening, but it was not happening in the program. The issue is knowing who the right people are to talk about specific topics.
Wes Hardaker noted that one issue is that the IAB turnover rate makes it challenging to keep and hand off institutional knowledge. Eliot Lear added that maintaining trust when there is turnover like that is not an easy task.
The IAB thanked Spencer Dawkins, Adrian Farrel, Russ Housley, Eliot Lear, Scott Mansfield, and Dan Romascanu for joining them to discuss this topic.
3. Monthly Reports
3.1. IANA Liaison Report
–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–
IANA Services Liaison Report – 21 April 2021 SLA Deliverables Update: - ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for the January-March 2021 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: Work with the IETF trust on licensing language for protocol parameter registries is still in progress. IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes: MEETING MINUTES – BEGIN Summary of Meeting Minutes for the IETF-IANA Group Thursday, March 18, 2021 Virtual meeting post IETF-110 18:00 UTC Attendees: Mirja Kühlewind, IAB Chair Lars Eggert, IETF Chair Suzanne Woolf, IAB IANA Program Russ Housley, IAB IANA Program Jari Arkko, IAB IANA Program Ted Hardie, 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 Sabrina Tanamal, Senior IANA Services Specialist Amanda Baber, Lead IANA Services Specialist 1. Introductions and Welcome Jay Daley sent regrets for this meeting. 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: Completed. Draft circulated with group. Will discuss later in this meeting. Action Item: 2020-06 Send draft 2021 Supplemental Agreement to group for review Status: Completed Action Item: 2020-07 Update the .arpa draft Status: Completed. Will discuss later in this meeting. 3. IANA Services Activity/Performance Four months of between-meeting cumulative stats are in plenary report: 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 has been approved, signed and posted. Annual Review of Protocol Parameter report (audit) was delivered to this group on 01 February 2021. There were no exceptions. R. Housley provided the group with a summary statement of the review and it has been posted on the ietf.org website. 5. Update on Operational Activities Annual Engagement Survey -There was an increase in participation from the IETF leadership group. Most other numbers were relatively the same as the previous year. -Satisfaction remains high among leadership and community. -In some of the comments there was a request for more virtual presence from IANA and more advertising of IANA services. We’re looking at potentially using Gather for more office hours and will brainstorm how to connect more with the community. Customer Service Feedback HDWD Post Ticket Surveys (November 2020-February 2021): Satisfaction Rate: Between 88.9%-100% Response Rate: Between 41.7%-69.2% .ARPA Management Version 02 of the document has been posted. The document has now been categorized as in the IAB stream. Discussion: J. Arkko: We need to do an official adoption call. M. Kühlewind: We have the adoption call on the agenda in two weeks. The review time is two weeks. S. Woolf: There was some conversation about explicitly bringing the draft to the attention of DNSOP. I don't think that actually happened. If it would be useful to bring this to DNSOP, the chairs can do that or IAB can do it too. I can't imagine that there's a problem with it. I don't expect the DNS folks to have a problem with it. I don't see this holding up any of the other steps. M. Kühlewind: We can add DNSOP to the feedback call and send it there as well, but I thought it was already brought up to DNSOP. K. Davies: That's my recollection as well. I thought it went to the list at some point. S. Woolf: I'm not sure. M. Cotton: We can make sure that as part of the call for review from the IAB that we forward it to the DNSOP list. I'm writing down the remainders. If it doesn't go out initially, then we can also forward it. J. Arkko: I will send the email to add this to the call. M. Cotton: Any other groups besides DNSOP that we want to specifically forward it to or no? K. Davies: FWIW, I think many people have reviewed it multiple times. Quality Assurance Review Process -With 12 months of experience and data, the annual review of the QA process is underway. -Staff is reviewing the process to make sure we are asking the right questions and getting meaningful data. -A full report will be available in the next few months. Mailing list administration We are currently working bringing mailing lists related to IANA registries that are run by individuals to IANA. Goal is to have the mailing lists administered/maintained by IANA staff and letting the experts focus on subject matter reviews. Discussion: M. Kühlewind: Is this an ICANN mailing list or one of the IETF domains? For example, the port experts mailing list is an ICANN domain, which I found to be a little strange. M. Cotton: We're modeling this after the Time Zone database, and that's an IANA mailing list. We're doing a review of all the mailing lists, so if there's something under ICANN that we need to move under IANA so that it's better organized, we'll take a look. We're making sure there are proper archives and will keep you updated. We are currently looking at the charset mailing list. M. Kühlewind: That makes sense. Updates on Other Misc. Operational Activities Licensing for IANA Protocol Parameter registries We are currently waiting for ICANN legal to review the draft statement. The group discussed the interaction of this matter with any possible changes to the operation of the Trust. Lars agreed to notify this group if any of those discussions might have an impact on licensing. Discussion: K. Davies: Met with Göran Marby to review the approach, and he's onboard. ICANN legal is updating language with respect to IANA's legal personality. Due to the ICANN meeting this week, we should close the loop soon. If we're all aligned, then we can work out next steps. 6. Other Topics for Discussion Registry Workflow System The IANA Technical Director is continuing work on the roadmap for the next year. Still focusing on using the new system on PEN/FCFS requests. IAB’s IANA Program New name is the IETF-IANA Group. Discussion: J. Arkko: We're almost set. The website has not been updated yet. We need to have a final answer on the members and then update the webpage. Maybe communicate directly with Cindy when that's going to happen. M. Kühlewind: Yes, please. And also, for the meeting it's always good to get it on the calendar and CC Cindy. IETF-110 Office Hours IANA staff will re-evaluate the hours for the next meeting. We had many visitors after the sessions ended. Log files Are the log files that are being provided still useful/needed? Discussion: K. Davies: We've been producing these for around 15 years or so. The schema of the log files is tied to the current ticketing system. As we evolve our platform, we're looking to build something new to support the IETF work. We see this is as a bit of a legacy requirement to continue to deliver them the way they're delivered requires a significant amount of engineering work. It raises the question of whether they are even necessary anymore. If there's a need for them, we'll continue to support them. R. Housley: My memory is that this was when IANA's performance was at an all-time low and we were concerned about the backlog. This was the first approach. And then we created a login to your ticketing system where we can't change anything but can see things. Then all of the performance issues went away, and no one has looked since. I don't even know if that RT login still works or not. I suspect others have a similar memory. I think as long as the reporting shows that there's isn't a problem, and we will through this group, raise an issue if there is a problem, and then we can address the problem. J. Arkko: I had forgotten their existence but now have a vague recollection. I would say there is a difference between the group overseeing the stats vs. the actual event logs. I like the event logs for transparency to see what's going on. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I have a slight preference for keeping some formats that would record notes or a summary of the actual data. M. Kühlewind: I didn't know what this one was but it looks very detailed from my point of view. I wonder if maybe there's a different way to extract some kind of logs from your tracking system directly rather than have this customized log. M. Cotton: We do have some logging of data as far as steps and processing documents that do connect with the datatracker. Kim, is it safe to say that we'll continue looking at this internally as we migrate to the registry workflow system we'll figure if we can provide in a different format some type of extracts? K. Davies: Yeah, I think if there's no requirement that we adhere to the existing format, then we can definitely produce something that provides transparency and the ability to crunch statistics. J. Arkko: Certainly, the format is not the issue. We can have another discussion about whether this whole event thing is necessary. I think I'm the only one speaking in favor, but do take a look and don't spend too much effort looking at the old format. M. Cotton: Thank you, Russ, Jari, and Mirja, for your input. We'll keep you posted. Upcoming Meeting schedule Next meeting will be either in San Francisco or virtual post IETF-111. Discussion: R. Housley: Don't we usually schedule a call in May, then decide if there are topics. M. Cotton: We used to have tentative in-between calls, but what we had decided to cancel because a lot of times, we ended up not having them unless there was a specific discussion needed. I can continue to do a call via email to see if anybody has anything to discuss and if we don't, we won't have a call in between. R. Housley: Works for me. .int draft Initial draft discussing .int names no longer used sent to the group. Discussion: M. Kühlewind: Should we talk about Kim's other draft? M. Cotton: Yes, the .int draft, it sounds like we need to come up with the pathway for that draft. K. Davies: We don't feel strongly about the publication mechanism, just the path of least resistance. Happy to take your advice under what mechanism. M. Cotton: As far as the pathway, is there a strong preference? M. Kühlewind: I don't think there's a natural place where this belongs. I'm not sure, but I can check with the IAB and see what people say. T. Hardie: IAB is the path of least resistance. That's because you have to talk 12 people into it. J. Arkko: I was thinking about this. This is really clean up, so this may also go to DSNOP or some other place. Or just IETF general. T. Hardie: Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting the IAB should be the default for everything DNS. I do think that this one has a little bit more sensitivity than most, partly because of the gray area of .int in general. I think that a group of people that is all clear that this is just a clean, I'm pretty the IAB can be that group. If it's for DSNOP, it should be informational. M. Kühlewind: Informational is fine because it's a cleanup. We could probably check with DNSOP to see if anybody is interested and if not, then we can bring it to the IAB or the other way around. M. Cotton: Would having it as AD sponsor be easier? S. Woolf: The only thing I would be nervous about with DNSOP and I could talk it over with the other co-chairs; it could if you squint a little bit like a policy document and we have to be very clear that it's not and that it's strictly operation cleanup. M. Kühlewind: I'm not sure how much the IETF community would feel about the ownership of .int domains. T. Hardie: If you have like you need an AD sponsorship, I'd say throw it to Warren and ask him what he thinks about this and get his advice. I think if any AD were to sponsor it, it would be Warren. New Action items: 2021-01 Token: J. Arkko Action Item: Initiate the adoption call in the IAB for the .arpa document 2021-02 Token: K. Davies Action Item: Share .int draft with Warren, post 00 version.
–End IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–
3.2. IRTF Chair Report
–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
IRTF chair report to the IAB for the month ending 21 April 2021. # Research Groups Lixia Zhang joining as DINRG co-chair. Initial discussions around a potential RG on Digital Preservation Standards. # ANRP Nothing to report. # ANRW The ANRW call for papers is open, with Nick Feamster and Andra Lutu chairing. Deadline extended to 5 May. # Documents and Errata draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do sent to RFC Editor draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch sent to RFC Editor draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2 ready for RFC Editor but late comments received draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g completed IRSG ballot; returned to RG draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan completed IRSG final poll; revision needed draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements in IRSG final poll draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke in IRSG review draft-irtf-panrg-questions in IRSG review draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch-considerations-04 in IRSG review draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-07 in IRSG review draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-generation-07 in IRSG review draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs-05 in IRTF Chair review draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2-18 in IRTF Chair review Errata #6257 confirmed
–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
3.3. RFC Editor Liaison Report
–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–
An ad-hoc committee convened by the RSOC is working through the changes to the XML V3 vocabulary since RFC 7991 and making slow but perceptible progress. The knotty question of whether to go back and change the XML in published RFCs, or do some sort of V3.1 version or perhaps something else remains unresolved. Our new contractor has been working on xml2rfc and fixing bugs so at this point there are no tooling problems holding up RFC publication. We un-suspended the RPC's Service Level agreement at the end of last year, and The RPC met their SLA in the first quarter.
–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–
3.4. RSSAC Liaison Report
–Begin RSSAC Liaison Report, Daniel Migault–
Most of the teleconference discusses a meeting between the ICANN board, the RSSAC chairs and the board liaison from Root Server System Governance Working Group (GWG) and RSSAC. The purpose was to present the current draft proposal of the GWG and position it to RSSAC37.
–End RSSAC Liaison Report, Daniel Migault–
3.5. RSS-GWG Report
–Begin RSS-GWG Report, Ted Hardie–
The March 2021 report from the GWG is here: https://community.icann.org/display/soacabout/Resources?preview=/ 120820207/160728401/March%202021%20Report.pdf The document we've been working on as description of the new organization is also now getting some significant external review, and it might be time for the IAB to take a squint at it.
–End RSS-GWG Report, Ted Hardie–
4. Meeting Minutes
The following meeting minutes were approved:
- 2021-03-31 technical discussion – (draft submitted 2021-03-31)
- 2021-04-07 business meeting – (draft submitted 2021-04-07)
The following meeting minutes remain under review:
- 2021-04-14 technical discussion – (draft submitted 2021-04-14)
5. Action Item Review
- 2021-04-07: Lars Eggert to ask the LLC Board if the IAB and IESG can be added to the paid IETF LLC Slack instance.
- 2021-04-07: Cindy Morgan to send a message to IETF-Announce (cc architecture-discuss) saying that the IAB will consider adoption of draft-iana-arpa-authoritative-servers at their 2021-04-21 meeting.
- 2021-04-07: Tommy Pauly (with Christoph Paasch and Stuart Cheshire) to update the proposal for an IAB workshop on user- consumable network quality and send it to the IAB for further refinement.
- 2021-04-07: Wes Hardaker (with Cullen Jennings, Colin Perkins, and Russ White) to come up with a list of subjective tags that define common characteristics of good RFCs.
- 2021-04-21: Cullen Jennings to draft some slides about living documents for discussion at the IAB/IESG online retreat.
The IAB agreed to adopt draft-iana-arpa-authoritative-servers as an Informational document on the IAB stream.
7. Retreat agenda
The IAB reviewed the results of their pre-retreat survey.
Those who responded to the survey said that the IAB’s role in the IETF as well as in the broader Internet community is to set direction of Internet technology development, liaise and provide outreach, and provide architectural oversight. The IAB has both reactive and proactive roles.
IAB Workshops, documents, programs, and the IAB Open meeting were viewed as positive contributions from the IAB over the past 1-3 years. A few people are concerned that there is too much focus on administrative work.
Survey responses indicated that lack of action, lack of visibility, and not doing enough architectural work were considered as negative actions from the IAB over the past 1-3 years.
According to the survey, over the next 3-5 years, the IAB would like to see more/better outreach in promoting the IETF’s successes, increasing the IETF’s influence, working with other SDOs, and bringing in relevant new work. There is a desire to be more active in setting long-range direction initiatives.
Potential areas where the IAB can improve include:
- Better community interactions and more visibility by doing things the technical participants care about
- Reorganizing processes and overall direction
- Better external communications
Some possible technical topics the IAB could consider in the coming year include:
- Data privacy
- Improving network support for applications
- Private space within protocols