Minutes of the 2022-01-19 IAB Business Meeting
- Jari Arkko
- Deborah Brungard
- Lars Eggert (IETF Chair)
- Wes Hardaker
- Cullen Jennings
- Mirja Kühlewind (IAB Chair)
- John Levine (Temporary RFC Series Project Manager)
- Zhenbin Li
- Jared Mauch
- Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
- Tommy Pauly
- Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)
- David Schinazi
- Sabrina Tanamal (IANA Liaison)
- Amy Vezza (IETF Secretariat)
- Martin Vigoureux (IESG Liaison)
- Russ White
- Greg Wood (IETF Director of Communications and Operations)
- Jiankang Yao
- Ben Campbell
- Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
- Dirk Kutscher
- Dave Oran
1.2. Agenda bash and announcements
An item on the IAB Open Meeting at IETF 113 was added to the agenda.
1.3. Meeting Minutes
The following minutes remain under review:
- 2022-01-12 business meeting – (posted 2022-01-12)
1.4. Action item review
- 2022-01-12: IAB to work out the details for closing the Plenary Planning Program.
- 2022-01-12: Cindy Morgan to start an e-vote for the IESG slate confirmation.
- 2022-01-12: Mirja Kühlewind and Cindy Morgan to find volunteers for the ISOC BoT interviews (Jari Arkko, Cullen Jennings, and Tommy Pauly have already volunteered).
- 2021-10-27: Cullen Jennings to talk to David Schinazi about the ISE job description.
- 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.
- 2021-09-08: Liaison Coordinators to come up with a list of potential candidates to reach out to for future IAB-appointed positions.
- Check back after next check-in with Liaison Managers (~2022-03).
- 2021-05-26: Russ White and Jared Mauch to review the IAB discussion on “The Internet of Three Protocols” and draft a problem statement to see if there is work that the IAB can do in this space.
- 2021-09-01: Jari Arkko to continue editing the document on the role of discovery in ensuring that Internet technology is broadly applicable.
- 2021-11-17: Mirja Kühlewind and Cindy Morgan to put together some options for the IAB Website revamp for the IAB to review.
- 2022-01-12: Deborah Brungard to report back to the IAB on ISOC planning for WTSA.
- 2022-01-18: IAB to review draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-10.
- 2022-01-19: Wes Hardaker to send a message to the Plenary Planning Program about the closure of the Program.
- 2022-01-19: Wes Hardaker to draft text for the Plenary Planning Program webpage noting that while the Program has been closed, the IAB is still open to suggestions about topics that are worthy of broad-area discussion in the IETF.
- 2022-01-19: ISE Search Committee to send a summary of the candidates to the IAB.
1.5. IAB Document Status Update
IAB State: Active IAB Document
IAB State: Active IAB Document
IAB State: Active IAB Document (EXPIRED)
In Program Last Call (ends 2022-01-30)
1.6. WG Chartering in Progress
- Privacy Respecting Incorporation of Values (PRIV)
1.7. Proposed BOF Requests
Multicast Source Routing over IPv6
Zhenbin Li said that he is reviewing this BOF request.
SAV for intra- and inter-domain networks
Zhenbin Li said that he is reviewing this BOF request. He noted that it has a lot to do with routing, so it would be good if Russ White could review this as well.
Lars Eggert noted that this request is about reopening the SAVI WG to include inter-domain things in the scope, and asked that anyone who was involved in SAVI take a look. Jari Arkko agreed to review this.
The first BOF Coordination call with the IESG will be on 2022-01-28.
2. Monthly Reports
2.1. IANA Liaison Report
–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Sabrina Tanamal–
IANA Services Liaison Report – 19 January 2022 SLA Deliverables Update: ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for the December 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: Licensing information has been posted at https://www.iana.org/help/licensing-terms and linked from the registries. The next IETF-IANA Group meeting will take place in February. IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes: Draft Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 16, 2021 Virtual meeting post-IETF 112 12:00 PM PST, 20:00 UTC Attendees: Mirja Kühlewind, IAB Chair Russ Housley, IETF-IANA Group Co-Lead Jari Arkko, IETF-IANA Group Harald Alvestrand, IETF liaison to ICANN Board Jay Daley, IETF LLC Executive Director Warren Kumari, IESG Representative Roman Danyliw, IESG Representative Kim Davies, VP, IANA Services, ICANN, President, Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) Amy Creamer, Director of Operations James Mitchell, Technical Director Michelle Cotton, Protocol Parameters Engagement Sr. Manager, IETF-IANA Group Co-Lead Amanda Baber, IANA Operations Manager Regrets: Lars Eggert, IETF Chair Sabrina Tanamal, Lead IANA Services Specialist Slides presented by Amy Creamer. 1. Introductions and Welcome Welcome to Warren Kumari and Roman Danyliw. They volunteered as IESG representatives to join the IETF-IANA Group’s activities since we work so closely with the IESG. 2. Review of Action Items from previous meetings Action Item: 2019-01 Reach out to Glenn/IETF Trust 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: 2021-03 Licensing discussion almost all done. Statement has been posted. Announcements have been sent. Status: Final website updates needed. 3. IANA Services Activity/Performance Three months (July 2021-September 2021) 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 2022 Supplemental Agreement process has started. - Currently with ICANN for internal reviews. Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) Operating Plan and Budget Activities: - Public Webinar took place on 7/26/21 and 7/27/21 - Link to recordings: https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/FY23+Budget+Webinars - The public comment period ended October 25th - No comments were received related to protocol parameters - The Public Comment Report on PTI & IANA Ops Plan & Budget will be published on November 30, 2021 5. Update on Operational Activities Customer Service Feedback: HDWD Post Ticket Surveys Satisfaction Rate: Between 92.9%-100% Response Rate: Between 62.5%-66.7% Positive comments included. No negative feedback received during this period. .ARPA Management: - RFC 9120 has been published. - Implementation planned for March 2022. .INT Document (draft-davies-int-historic-02): - Version 02 was uploaded in September 2021 - Mostly complete. Need to speak to W. Kumari as the AD sponsoring for next steps. Discussion: K. Davies: There has been a small flurry of discussion on DNSOP WG list. Mostly supportive. Suggestion to go a bit further to use document to formally mark RFCs creating the .int names being deprecated as historic. Waiting for W. Kumari to comment. Need additional language. Not sure if it will affect publication process. W. Kumari: Not sure if it should make the other docs historic. I need to have another look. M. Cotton: Will ping Warren in a few weeks regarding the next steps for the document. Licensing for IANA Protocol Parameter registries: - Statement posted here: https://www.iana.org/help/licensing-terms - Announcements have been sent by ICANN and the IETF Trust - Final updates to www.iana.org are pending 6. Other Topics for Discussion Registry Workflow System: Current status: - Plan remains to have replacement system to process PEN requests as the first phase. - Launch date has been delayed to Q2 2022 - Early stages of planning subsequent releases Demo of the current system by James Mitchell. J. Mitchell: The Opal project is a replacement of how we process PENs and will be used for other protocol parameters. We've been working on it for a few years. PEN application is separate because of the volume of requests. It's an aging system that needs replacing. - Shows system that is under development (via screen share). J. Mitchell: This system will handle all registries and will be a more immersive experience. J. Mitchell shows what information will be made public, how email confirmation requests will be sent, staff and user interface screens. Discussion: J. Daley: Have you considered any type of registration lock. When you make it easier to make changes, you’ll receive more. J. Mitchell: Have not seen the need yet. Historical data will provide some guidance, however we need to be aware of it moving forward. R. Danyliw: What is the volume for PEN requests? M. Cotton: Around 120 new per month, 10-30 modifications and an occasional deletion. J. Daley: Will there be any type of dashboard sitting behind this that would be public? J. Mitchell: At this point of time, plan is just to replace PEN. Focus was on Minimal requirements. We have changed the focus not to be as ruthlessly minimum. We have a processing dashboard for the naming registry that we can model. We will discuss more in the future of what dashboard capabilities are needed. For example we have more yang modules derived for registries. J. Arkko: Demo looks nice. Consider phased approach instead of having the perfect system. J. Mitchell: Phased releases is our plan. R. Housley: Monthly data we get in the report would be OK for the first increment. TZ Database: - Discussions continue on the mailing list - There has been no additional request to the AD for further review or any appeal to the IESG - IANA continues to monitor the discussions IETF-112 Office Hours: - Had about 11 visitors, 4 with substantive questions. - Very slow this meeting, possibly due to the timezone. Interim Office Hours Update: - Only 1 visitor during the first experiment. - Difficult to say whether it was successful based on just one iteration. - Discussing having Interim Office Hours in Gather between IETF 112 and IETF 113. Formalizing/homing the tools of production for the IANA registries: How far should IANA pursue formalizing/homing the tools of production for the IANA registries? - Made informal/low-key approaches where we know we have external dependencies (e.g. tz repo, mailing lists not hosted by IANA). - Want to make sure operations continue successfully should any specific individuals no longer be involved. - Mixed success or interest in having the current situation evolve. - As we seek to professionalize and increase resiliency, how far should we push this? - Does it make sense to establish a common expectation for IANA hosting the relevant platforms (or having administrative responsibility) - Should IANA merely make best effort, or pursue additional formalisms? K. Davies: We know we are dependent on volunteers as experts, operating mailing lists or tools. No SLAs or agreements etc. for this work. Grateful for volunteer work. Putting it on the agenda was just to bring it up and have informal discussions, sound out individual opinions. H. Alvestrand: I ran list. Approached for moving the list. Need to see what we get out of moving it. R. Housley: Started by getting an archive at IETF, move the list to IETF.org. Tools, get a copy of the tool so that if the person stopped maintaining it, decide if it was mission critical, we could do further maintenance. Does IANA depend on Bill Fenner’s tools? R. Danyliw: Critical infrastructure for the IETF, the fact we have volunteers running these scares me, running mailings lists should be done by IETF. J. Daley: Small piece of work needs to be done to look at level of dependency. As long as archives, source code, web service, we don’t have the ability to reproduce is a serious issue. Prioritize and plan for recovery that looks at how we can move forward. M. Kühlewind: Not sure what we are talking about. How many tools? K. Davies: There are not many that are significantly dependent. Some RFCs say where the mailing lists are created. Designated experts that have their own systems, beyond our ability to manage them. TZ is a good example. M. Cotton: We will follow-up with Harald regarding the mailing list transfer. Another list was with Ned Freed. K. Davies: Another example is using GitHub, a request from the IETF community. Not a major issue here. Risk analysis approach. J. Mitchell: Language list with Harald and charsets working with Ned. Outcome: We'll have more discussion as IANA documents dependencies. 7. Upcoming meeting schedule With IETF-113 potentially being a Hybrid meeting, will our meeting be virtual post IETF-113 or during? Discussion: J. Daley: March 2022 meeting allowing around 650 people, somewhere in Europe. Final remarks: R. Danyliw: Thanks for the service that we receive. The protocols the IETF creates would not be successful without the work that IANA does. Summary of New Action items: No new action items.
–End IANA Liaison Report, Sabrina Tanamal–
2.2. IRTF Chair Report
–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
IRTF chair report to the IAB for the month ending 19 January 2022. # Research Groups Interviewed potential candidates for HRPC co-chair; gathering feedback. Appointment of GAIA co-chair in progress. # ANRP ANRP awardees for 2022 confirmed: Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi, Gautam Akiwate, Corrine Cath, Sam Kumar, Bruce Spang, Tushar Swamy, and Daniel Wagner. Scheduling of talks in progress. # ANRW Nothing to report. # Documents and Errata * With RFC Editor - draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke (AUTH48) * In IESG Conflict Review - draft-irtf-panrg-questions (cleared IESG Review; needs revision) * In IRSG Final Poll - draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs (1 yes, 1 no-ob; poll due 2021-12-20) * In IRSG Reviews - draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g (reviewer: Lars Eggert) - draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion * In IRTF Chair Review - draft-irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve - draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo - draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions-06 - draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-03 - draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch-considerations-06 (ready for IESG Conflict Review) - draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2-24 (ready for IESG Conflict Review) * Waiting on Revision for Next Step - draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines (needs revision: next step IRTF Chair Review) - draft-irtf-panrg-questions-11 (needs revision: next step Send to RFC Editor) - draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification (IRSG Review complete, revision needed: next step final poll) - draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-generation (IRSG Review complete, revision needed: next step final poll) - draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history (IRSG Review complete, revision needed: next step final poll) - draft-irtf-qirg-principles (IRSG review complete 2021-12-06 - revision needed: next step final poll) # Other Activities Issued call for travel grant applications for IETF 113, sponsored by Netflix and Comcast. Due to the pandemic, also accepting applications for support for remote attendance beyond fee waivers (e.g., travel to remote hubs; childcare support).
–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
2.3. RFC Editor Liaison Report
–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–
The [Temporary RFC Series Project Manager] is slogging through the updates to RFC 7991, which is a lengthy and tedious task. We hope to be done by the February RSOC meeting. For the ever-intriguing question of whether and how to revise the XML in published RFCs to match the final v3 vocabulary, we're close to a final proposal, simplify addresses as described last month, and a few filled in default values. Since the xml2rfc tool has improved quite a lot in the two years we've been using it to render RFCs, re-rendering the XML will produce somewhat different, generally better, output compared to what we have now. He has also been working with he ED to review the new authors site, and planning for the transition from the current setup to the RSWG and recruiting a RSCE.
–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–
3. IRTF Review: Information-Centric Networking
Dirk Kutscher and Dave Oran updated the IAB on the Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG).
Dave Oran said that overall, ICNRG is modestly healthy, with work at multiple stages of maturity. Mature work is being published as RFCs, there is decent progress on adopted work, and the community retains good leadership, at least among academic faculty/students. However, the engagement level is historically low across the whole community, and new work submissions as Internet-Drafts have mostly dried up.
ICNRG has published 5 new RFCs in the past 18 months:
- RFC 8793: Information-Centric Networking (ICN): Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) and Named Data Networking (NDN) Terminology (Informational RFC)
- RFC 8884: Research Directions for Using Information-Centric Networking (ICN) in Disaster Scenarios (Informational RFC)
- RFC 9064: Considerations in the Development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-Like Information-Centric Networking Protocols (Informational RFC)
- RFC 9138: Design Considerations for Name Resolution Service in Information-Centric Networking (ICN) (Informational RFC)
- RFC 9139: Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Adaptation to Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (LoWPANs) (Experimental RFC)
Additionally, there are five drafts that are in RG Last Call, IRSG Review, IESG Conflict Review, or with the RFC Editor. More details are available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/icnrg/documents/.
Dave Oran said there is a decent pipeline of in-progress work, including:
- Manifests for handling large objects and object collections
- Forwarding Path Steering
- Improvements to Flow Balance
- Reflexive forwarding for distributed computing apps
Current research topics in ICNRG include:
- Distributed Computing with ICN – getting beyond legacy of just content fetch
- Leveraging the ICN security model with continuing work on trust schemas and automated trust assessment algorithms
- Applicability of ICN as protocol substrate for Web3 and other decentralized approaches to Internet applications.
- Continuing refinement of ICN protocols for IoT and edge computing
- Interaction of ICN with work on in-network computing, particularly programming of networking devices as being investigated in COINRG
Dirk Kutscher noted that the engagement level in ICNRG is way down; participation at virtual interim meetings and the annual ACM conference is stagnant to modestly declining. Some of this might be organic decline as the ICN research area is maturing (9 years since formation of ICNRG, 11+ years overall), but most of this is likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research collaboration is very sensitive to in-person interaction both within and across teams, and the ability to forge new relationships or kick off new research topics is seriously degraded because video conferencing is notoriously inadequate for this. It is unlikely that either chairs or most active participants will be going to Vienna in person for IETF 113.
The current plan for ICNRG is to keep pushing mature documents through to publication and continue working on other adopted topics on the mailing list and in virtual interim meetings. They will continue to push for increased engagement from the ICN community with other IRTF efforts such as COINRG. They will also try for increased focus on distributed computing pieces. There is a new attempt on the mailing list to investigate the relationship of ICN to recent discussions in IETF and IRTF about centralization and the push for decentralized Internet services and applications. Once the pandemic has waned, they will see if the resumption of in-person activities re-energizes the community and reassess where they are.
4. IESG Slate Confirmation
Via e-vote, the IAB confirmed the IESG slate presented by the IETF NomCom.
Zhenbin Li recused himself from the discussion and consideration of the Routing Area Director.
5. IAB Open Meeting at IETF 113
The IAB discussed the IAB Open Meeting at IETF 113. Jared Mauch and David Schinazi both said that they are planning to be in Vienna and can co-chair with Mirja Kühlewind, conflicts permitting.
Mirja Kühlewind said that the agenda would include updates from the AID Workshop and the EDM Program, and asked whether a one-hour slot was still appropriate.
Jari Arkko noted that the IAB might want to consider an agenda topic on architectural contributions from outside the IAB or an IAB Program. The IAB agreed, but decided that a one-hour slot would still be appropriate, given the constraints of a mostly-online hybrid meeting.
6. Executive Session: Independent Submissions Editor Appointment
The Independent Submissions Editor appointment was discussed in an executive session.