IAB, IESG and IEEE 802 Executive Committee Minutes of the 16 March 2013 Face-to-Face Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA Reported by: Cindy Morgan & Jon Rosdahl ATTENDEES ------------------- Bernard Aboba, IAB Jari Arkko, IETF Chair Stewart Bryant, IESG (Routing Area) Ross Callon, IAB Benoit Claise, IESG (Operations & Management Area) Subir Das, IEEE 802.21 Chair Spencer Dawkins, IAB Ralph Droms, outgoing IESG (Internet Area) Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair Adrian Farrel, IESG (Routing Area) Stephen Farrell, IESG (Security Area) Don Fedyk, IEEE 802.1 invited expert Heather Flanagan, RFC Series Editor Howard Frazier, IEEE 802.3.1 Chair Eric Gray, IETF Liaison Manager to IEEE 802.1 Brian Haberman, IESG (Internet Area) Joel Halpern, IAB Bob Heile, IEEE 802.15 Chair Russ Housley, IAB Chair Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 Chair Bruce Kraemer, IEEE 802.11 Chair Eliot Lear, IAB Barry Leiba, IESG (Applications Area) Ted Lemon , IESG (Internet Area) Xing Li, IAB Mike Lynch, IEEE 802.18 TAG Chair Roger Marks, IEEE 802.16 Chair Karen McCabe, IEEE-SA Senior Director Steve Mills, IEEE-SA Past-President Apurva N. Mody, IEEE 802.22 Chair Cindy Morgan, IETF Secretariat Paul Nikolich, IEEE 802 Chair Glenn Parsons, IEEE 802.1 VC, IEEE RAC Chair Pete Resnick, IESG (Applications Area) Max Riegel, IEEE 802 OmniRAN ECSG Chair Buzz Rigsbee, IEEE-802 Meeting Manager Jon Rosdahl, IEEE 802 Exec Secretary Dan Romascanu, IETF Liaison Manager to IEEE-SA Dorothy Stanley, IEEE 802.11 Liaison to IETF Martin Stiemerling, IESG (Transport Area) Michael Johas Teener, IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking TG Chair Dave Thaler, IAB Pat Thaler, IEEE 802 Vice-chair Geoff Thompson, 802 Executive Committee Hannes Tschofenig, IAB Sean Turner, IESG (Security Area) Juan Carlos Zuniga, IEEE 802 OmniRAN ECSG Vice-chair MINUTES ------------------- 1. Introductions (including new IESG and IAB members), goals of the meeting Jari Arkko and Paul Nikolich welcomed everyone to the meeting and led a round of introductions. They briefly summarized the meeting agenda [http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/ 2ndIEEE802andIETFleaders]. 2. Status of 4441bis Slides: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/RFC4441rev- status-as-of-IETF-86-v2.pptx Spencer Dawkins briefly summarized the history of the revision to RFC 4441, "The IEEE 802/IETF Relationship." At the face-to-face meeting in July 2012, the group decided to revise the document, and a small team was formed to write the update, which is currently known as draft-iab-rfc4441rev-03 [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/]. The target audience for the document is IEEE 802 participants and IETF participants who are proposing new work in one of the organizations that may overlap or conflict with work going on in the other and need guidance how to proceed. This requires a resource that is accessible for people who will never attend a meeting in the other organization. The document will eventually be published as an RFC on the IAB stream; however, it will be an Informational RFC and will not be binding on either the IETF or the IEEE 802. The document has completed IAB Last Call and is starting to receive review comments from the IEEE 802 side. The current goal is to have the document published as an RFC by June 2013. At this point, the IEEE 802 has no plans to ballot the document; instead, the IEEE 802 will provide a "Note" for the cover page of the new RFC, indicating that the IEEE 802 agrees with the document. 3. Status of the Shared Areas Work Slides: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/Status-of- the-Shared-Area-Work.pptx Dan Romascanu and Pat Thaler reviewed the list of shared work items. There are currently 20 items on the list, three of which have been closed. The slides (see above) have the current status of each item. On Item 13 [IETF MIF and IEEE 802.21], Ted Lemon will be taking over from Ralph Droms on the IETF side. There is a proposal to keep the work on the back burner for now until the architecture is finished, but the item will remain open in order to ensure continued communication between the groups. On Items 16-18 [IEEE802.1Q SRP (and GEN2 updates) and SDP/SIP, IEEE 802.1AS/1588 and NTP, and Use of TRILL as an alternative path selection protocol for use in 802.11 mesh networks], there is a concern that the right people from the IEEE 802 and the IETF are not currently involved in the work, and there is not enough cross- participation. Brian Haberman noted that he had asked for a liaison statement in the NTP working group. On Item 20 [Use of TRILL as an alternative path selection protocol for use in 802.11 mesh networks], Dan Romascanu reported that no actions were specifically requested of 802.11 at this time and suggested closing the item as there is no work at this time. The item can be re-opened if there is work needed in the future. Dan Romascanu noted that closed items are still listed on the shared work items list, which is publicly available at http://www.iab.org/activities/joint-activities/iab-ieee-coordination/. 4. Processes and communication between the IETF and IEEE 802 Slides: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/Processes- Communication_01.pptx Dan Romascanu and Pat Thaler led a discussion on processes and communication between the IETF and the IEEE 802, including what has been learned and what can still be improved. Since the initial face- to-face meeting in July 2012, there have been four virtual meetings with a subset of participants. A joint email list has also been set up to aid in communications. Both IETF and IEEE-SA are active participants in OpenStand [http://open-stand.org/]. The participants discussed ways to improve communications, including use of the new-work@ietf.org mailing list and finding the right balance between formal and informal communications. Both organizations need to find ways to draw attention to urgent communications and try to raise the priority of time-sensitive items. Dan Romascanu wondered whether a tutorial by the IETF at the IEEE 802 plenary would be useful, similar to the IEEE 802.1Q tutorial [http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-edu- ieee802-2.pdf] at IETF 86; the group agreed this would be a good idea. Exact timing and content (process vs. technical) will be discussed in the coordination meetings. The group discussed future collaboration, agreeing that the virtual meetings would continue. The group discussed timing and opportunities for future face-to-face meetings, but no decision was made. Discussions will continue off-line. 5. Recent End-Runs on IETF and IEEE 802 Standards Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/inet-stds- conflicts-iesg-iab-ieee802.pptx Russ Housley led a discussion on internet standards conflicts, noting that there are multiple interpretations of the WTO rules regarding who can set standards. The organizations that develop internet standards but are not recognized as official standards bodies by the WTO need to find ways to either increase the effort necessary to creating a conflicting standard, or else reduce the amount of effort necessary to prevent conflicting standards from being developed. Historically, IEEE 802 has submitted their standards to ISO for ratification; the W3C has begun doing that as well. However, the IEEE 802 documents in the ISO 8802 series are not the most recent versions of the standards, so many are obsolete or out of date. The IETF, on the other hand, has a different relationship with ISO. The IETF initially tried to establish a Class A Liaison relationship with ISO, but that was rejected. Instead, the IETF uses their relationship with the Internet Society (ISOC), who has a Class A Liaison relationship with ISO JTC1-SC6. Jari Arkko asked the IEEE 802 how much effort and cost is involved in getting their standards ratified in ISO. Bruce Kraemer replied that it takes about seven months for a document to go through the ISO balloting process, which includes significant preparation for meetings and defending the submissions--about 10% of a man-year. Russ Housley noted that specifications submitted for fast-track processing by national standards bodies have no checks for collisions with multi-stakeholder standards bodies, which leads to conflicts. There has been a large effort to educate governments about the impact of these conflicts with IETF and IEEE 802 standards. The IEEE and IETF both participate in the EU Multi-Stakeholder Platform (MSP) on ICT standards. The UK recently announced the properties that an SDO must have to be referenced in their procurement documents, and those properties were largely in line with the principles of OpenStand. 6. OmniRAN Study Group Slides: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/ omniran-13-0011-01-ecsg-omniran-introduction-and-way-forward.pptx Max Riegel presented an overview of the work happening in the OmniRAN Study Group. Juan Carlos Zuniga noted that the Study Group does not yet know which Working Group in IEEE 802 would be the best home for this work. Spencer Dawkins noted that the work may impact multiple IETF Areas (Security, Transport). Ross Callon suggested that the scope of the work needs to be more clearly defined, and Max replied that the Study Group is working on it. 7. Time Protocols Unification - 802.1AS/1588 and NTP Slides: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/as-mjt-time- synch-unification-for-IETF-and-1588-0313.pdf Michael Johas Teener presented an overview of the issues with time synch unification between NTP, IEEE Std 1588-2008 and IEEE Std 802.1AS-2011. Michael noted that new work has been proposed on 1588 and 802.1AS. Dan Romascanu suggested a small design team be formed to work on the issues. 8. Dealing with Regulators Slides: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/ 2013/01/18-13-0033-00-0000-IEEEE-802-in-the-Regulatory-Space.pptx Mike Lynch provided an overview of the mechanisms that the IEEE 802 has developed to deal with matters in the regulatory space, namely by creating the IEEE 802.18 to deal specifically with regulators. 9. Dual Use Registries Slides: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/ dualuseregistries.pptx Sean Turner presented an overview of some of the issues that come with multi-use registries, namely the conflicts that arise when more than one protocol uses the same registry and the sides cannot agree when to add new values to the registry. This is particularly a problem when the two protocols come from different SDOs. In December 2012, IEEE 802.11 requested that "brainpool" values be added to the IKEv1 registry in order to support IEEE 802.11-2012. However, while the IETF obsoleted the IKEv1 protocol, the registry is still active. In the end, the "brainpool" values were added to the registry with notes stating that those values are not for IKEv1. Dorothy Stanley noted that now that the IETF and the IEEE 802 are aware that this sort of situation can occur, both sides can be more vigilant when referencing the other organization's registries in the future. Jari Arkko suggested that guidance on when it is acceptable to reference a number space would be useful. Bruce Kraemer noted that in 802.11 documents, there is a mandatory editorial phase during which they can identify the shared number space in shared registries in the future. 10. Action items and planning work ahead The group agreed to have two virtual meetings before the end of July; Dan Romascanu will send out a poll to select the meeting dates. The coordination team will discuss scheduling the next face-to-face meeting, desirably during 2014. Brian Haberman will work with Michael Johas Teener to form a small design team to clarify the issues going on in the study group on Time Protocols Unification. Spencer Dawkins will add text to 4441rev regarding dual-use registries. The IEEE 802 EC will change the order in which registry information is added to 802 documents in order to allow more time to deal with dual- use registry issues.