Minutes IETF120: alldispatch: Mon 16:30
minutes-120-alldispatch-202407221630-00

ALLDISPATCH Hybrid Meeting @IETF-120

Monday 22 July 2024
Room: Regency C/D
09:30-11:30 Local

Log into the IETF datatracker to access:

• MeetEcho
• Notes
• Zulip

9:30 Status and Agenda Bash - Chairs and ADs (10 min)

Doing note well verbally as the room systems are being worked on still.
Got slides and video working now.

Registry policies "... with Expert Review" (12 min)
Presenter: Carsten Bormann (Remote)
draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review

Lars Eggert: Could you explain why you want to combine. If you have
complicated registry you need expert, why do you also need to other
actions.
Lars: If it is expert review, give instructions to experts, why
complicating things by combining them.
Lars: What if there is expert and iesg review and they are
conflicting. I am worried about the implications of this
Watson Ladd: Perhaps this and next one could be wg together.
John Klensin: There are cases were we want to have IESG, IETF etc
review, but still get expert to make sure it is right.
Dean Bogdanov: There might be use cases where it might be useful.
This could be AD deciding whether expert review is needed.
Murray Kucherawy: Small working group
Barry Leiba: Agree with Lars. Needs working group. Several things
for BCP anyways.
Harold Alvestrand: We create registries in the belief that community
wll use them. Community review often is not competent to run these
registries. In those cases we need experts. Short working group, do not
let it run for 10 years.

Chairs: Dispatch result: Small working group

Hybrid IANA Registration Policy (12 min)
Presenter: John C Klensin (Remote)
draft-klensin-iana-consid-hybrid

Barry Leiba: To same working than previous one. Both this and
previous one want to be done sooner than later and making new bis
document might take time.
Amanda: IANA. This hybrid procedure can be done. We want more
community input, but no comment on dispatch result.
Harold: We could make small updates and then combine them to new bis
document.
Leiba: Agreeing with Harold. To Amanda, Yes, we can do it now, but
Carsten and Klensin do want to do things differently in every document.

Chairs: WG to address those two topics. Any opposing views.

Gender Representation in the IETF Nominating Committees (12 min)
Presenter: Mallory Knodel (Remote)
draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation

Dean Bogdanov: As NomCom chair this year, it is like begging process
trying to get people to volunteer for NomCom. The more conditions you
put to the volunteers you might not get best selection. There is a
problem that if someone volunteers for NomCom then they can't volunteer
for leadership process.
Dan Harkins: There should be reference that is not behind paywall,
other stuff, dispatch: do nothing.
Barry Leiba:: Takes offence what Dan said, AD sponsorship
Ted Hardie: Does need working group. There is ways of doing this by
just adding more people until it is gender diverse, there no need to
replace people.
Martin Thomson: There people who think other dimensions of diversity
that needs to solved too, disagree with ted, we need to solve gender
diveristy, not really geographical diversity. Can be done quickly.
Rich Salz: Resurrect elegy groups, AD sponsored is not appropriate,
we need whole IETF to work on this.
Cullen jennings: We need WG for gender diversity, there are other
things to work on, but we need to do this first. I do not want to be AD
trying to find consensus on IETF list. WG can do others, but should
start with this.
Christian Huitema: Agree that should be WG. If we add more women in
the pool, that will already solve the problem.
Dean Bogdanov: I did quick check, there were 15 women nomcom
volunteers out of 163 this year.
Roman: As an responsible AD, I think we need WG.

Chairs: Dispatch result: WG

IETF Plenary List Management Procedures (12 min)
Presenter: Eliot Lear (Onsite)
draft-lear-bcp83-replacement

Harald Alvestrand: IETF Chair when this bcp83 landed. There were
discussion whether there is a way to do. This was intended not to be
used ever. We need it now. Lets rewrite it.
Bron Gondwana: The current process is not good.
David Schinazi: +1 to Bron, both draft have good ideas, working
group is right place.
Dan Harkins: I agree that this whole process is ugly and takes for
months. We really need to address this, and it needs to be working
group.
Martin Thomson: Forgot to remove myself, agree with others.
Andrew Campling: This needs to be done.
Nick Doty: Fine with working group, perhaps taking wider view than
just plenary lists.
Colin Perkins: I agree we have serious problems, it does exists also
in WG lists. BCP83 process does not work. WG is good.
Warren Kumari: Someone needs to do it. I am fine with WG, but we
should do it quickly. WGs have habit of taking long.

Chairs: Dispatch result: WG

IETF Experiments and Guidelines for Experimental RFCs (12 min)
Presenter: Adrian Farrel (Onsite)
draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp

Toerless Eckert: Lost network connection, lost comment
Colin Perkins: Providing some guidance is good thing. AD sponsored,
or targeted WG. I do not believe wiki page.
Cullen Jennings: We have used experimental RFCs also for other
things than just experiments.
Jonathan Lennox: Sometimes when we get it through it is failed
experiment, we should describe how to publish them.
Suresh Krsihnan: I want some stronger than what is now. We do not
see that much experimental codepoints. AD sponsored sounds good enough
for this.
Toerless Eckert: Start with experiment, and things should be
upgraded.
Tom Hill: we want to strength rules around expereimental RFCS, if
this is AD sponsored, then we might loose some community discussion.
Adrian: This needs more than just going directly from authors to AD
sponsored last call
Roman: Create dedicated mailing list and see what we can resolve
this in mailing list

Chairs: Dispatch result: BoF, mailing list, more discussion, then
perhaps AD sponsored.

An Update on Milestones (12 min)
Presenter: David Schinazi
draft-schinazi-update-on-milestones

Bron Gondwana: AD sponsored, or /dev/random
Robert Sparks: AD sponsored, do not form a standing group to handle
documents like this.
Eliot Lear: What Robert said
Pete Resnick: AD Sponsored, if we fail 4 week last cal then go on
next things
Christopher Inacio: AD sponsored, or WG, but not for /dev/null
Andrew Campling: I think there would be value for long lived WG, but
if this goes to there give short milestone to get it done quickly.
Toerless Eckert: missed
Richard Barnes: AD sponsored, I would remove milestones
Zaheduzzaman Sarker: You can't charter WG without milestones.
Everything else we can already do.
Lucas Pardue: I think this should be done, I do not care where it is
done.
Warren Kumari: Some of the working like maintenance working groups
which do not need milestones.
Bron Gondwana: I have never seen AD to not approve milestones, so
that is busywork, lets get rid of it.
Bob Hinden: I do support this work, AD sponsor is fine.
Roman: Make dedicated mailing list and fine for AD sponsoring it.

Chairs: Dispatch result: AD sponsored for this

Lightweight Methods for Authenticating IP Header (12 min)
Presenter: Linda Dunbar (Onsite)
draft-dunbar-secdispatch-ligthtweight-authenticate

Paul Wouters: If this suitable for Nasser BoF, (shouts from room no)

Jonathan Hoyland: Very confused about the security model. If I am
right it does not work, and then we can dispatch it to nowhere.
Kathleen Moriarty: Is there existing one that we could use to
discuss this.
Watson Ladd: Can we shoehorn it to IPsecME. It is quite similar. We
need proper key management
Michael Richardson: We did not specify AH in way that could be used.
Thats why it is not IPsec problem, as there is no update to IKEv2 or ESP
so it is no IPsec, it must be something SDN related WG.
Deb Cooley: We are not prepared to dispatch to IPsecME, we need
mailing list and discuss more.

Chairs: Dispatch result: mailing list and more discussion

The auth URI scheme (12 min)
Presenter: Soni Lasso Terense (Remote/Onsite)
draft-soni-auth-uri

Justin Richer: Is this a problem that actually needs to be solved.
Dispatch resolution: Nothing.
Nick Doty: I do not understand, please explain.
Daniel Smullen: My understanding is that this tries to solve
semantic attack described in 3986. So I think there is problem, and
perhaps we should have WG for this.

Chairs: Perhaps in WIT area.
Francesca Palombini: I would be interested to hear more feedback
before making decision. We should find a venue for pulling more
feedback.
Martin Thomson: It is not clear whether this is generic URI problem
or a problem that is specific to particular schemes. It looks this is
trying to solve for http. URIs broadly belong to ART area.
Mirja Kühlewind: We need more discussion, side meeting.
Roman: Is there a list that might be helpful here. We can't dispach
to side meeting.
Fracesca: There is WIT are mailing list.

Chairs: Dispatch result: more discussion, mailing list

Roman: This is the second time we run the experiment of the
ALLDISPATCH and IESG wants your feedback of this experiment.