Minutes interim-2008-iab-09 2008-04-16
minutes-interim-2008-iab-09-20080416-00

Minutes
IAB Teleconference

16 April 2008

1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia

1.1 Agenda

1. Roll-Call, Agenda-Bash, Approval of Minutes, Administrivia
2. Liaison Reports
3. RFC 5000 / STD 1
4. IANA .ARPA Migration
5. RFC Editor (Re)Structure Model
6. Retreat Planning
7. Errata Discussion
8. IETF Liaison to TC46
9. Update on Joint Working Team (JWT)
10. AOB

1.2 Attendance

PRESENT

Loa Andersson

Stuart Cheshire

Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)

Russ Housley (IETF Chair)

Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)

Gregory Lebovitz

Barry Leiba

Andy Malis

Danny McPherson

Dave Oran

Dow Street (IAB Executive Director

Dave Thaler

Mark Townsley (IESG liaison)

Lixia Zhang

APOLOGIES

Gonzalo Camarillo

Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)

Kurtis Lindqvist

Lynn St. Amour

1.3 Administrivia

The board agreed on a time for regular phone meetings based on the availability of new members. (Wednesdays at 11:30 ET)

1.4 Approval of Minutes

Dow Street reviewed the plan for incumbent IAB members to assist with preparing minutes for previous meetings (catch-up). No final minutes were approved during this meeting.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1. IESG Liaison Report

Liaison report submitted by Mark Townsley:

The most recent general meeting of the IETF ended March 14, 2008, since then the IESG held two formal telechats, one on March 27 and the other on April 10. In total, 19 internet drafts were brought to the two telechats for review and action by the IESG.

One new working group, “Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (idnabis)” was approved. One existing working group, “Multiparty Multimedia Session Control (mmusic)” had a new charter approved. One “IESG statement on SPAM control on IETF mailing lists” was approved.

In addition to document review and WG actions:

The 2008 IESG retreat will take place May 29 & 30th in New York City. Many of the current topics of discussion on the IESG mailing list will result in agenda topics for that meeting, likely including:

• RFC Errata processing. Cullen Jennings has put together a summary of some of the ongoing discussions about RFC Errata processing in Internet Draft form for discussion at the IESG retreat.
• Should informational or experimental documents which change normative behavior of a standards track document be allowed or not? If so, when and why?
• Improving the WG chartering and charter tracking process. Dan Romascanu has posted some thoughts and will be leading a discussion at the retreat.

The BoF wiki for the next IETF meeting in Dublin is here: http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart

RFC 3550 is RTP, RFC 3350 was never issued. It seems that someone, somewhere, referred to RTP as RFC 3350 and it has proliferated. If you ever wanted to know which RFC numbers have not been issued, take a look here: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/mini-index — each digit represents an RFC number, and the light grey digits represent missing or non-issued RFCs (courtesy of Henrik, of course). v2.08.05 of idnits will catch these types of errors from now on.

There was a brief mention of potentially running a DNSSEC experiment at the next IETF.

In addition to the formal report there was a brief discussion of RFC errata handling. The topic will be revisited at the IAB retreat.

2.2. RFC Editor Liaison Report

Liaison report submitted by Sandy Ginoza

• We are working on an update to the proposed errata process draft. We expect to post version -01 once it is complete.
• We have created individual logins for the ADs for errata verification purposes and distributed these logins and passwords to Russ Housley for distribution.
• We are waiting for a recommendation regarding the publication status of RFC 5000 (and future xx00 documents).

2.3. IRTF Chair Report

(no report submitted)

2.4. ISOC Liaison Report

(no report submitted)

3. RFC 5000 / STD 1

RFC 5000 will be the next in the series of “Internet Official Protocol Standards” documents, which provide a periodic snapshot of the state of standardization of protocols used in the Internet.

The IAB considered the issue of whether RFC 5000 can be published as STD 1 and/or designated as an Internet Standard per RFC 2026. Both RFC 2026 and RFC 1311 explicitly allow for this use of STD1. However, RFC 5000 would reference down-level documents, which is generally inappropriate for a full standard since the inclusion of normative references normally leads a document to be published as informational. Can one have a STD that points to an informational document? The answer appears to be ‘yes’, though such a case does not appear to have previously occurred.

There is a separate consideration of what to do about previous documents in this series. Currently, the markings for previous documents are somewhat inconsistent. After some discussion, IAB members agreed that previous documents should be marked as Historic. The IESG will need to approve this marking for the old documents – the agreed approach will be to add a section or appendix to RFC 5000 that moves the earlier documents to Historic. Russ Housley will take this item to the IESG, with the plan to publish RFC 5000 as both Informational and STD 1. Future documents in this series will also be published as Informational, alleviating the need to move older versions to Historic. In turn, future documents in this series would not require IESG review, which is appropriate given that RFC X000 documents are from the Independent Stream.

4. IANA .ARPA Migration

The IAB discussed a draft plan for signing .ARPA, including (1) renaming the servers into ns.arpa (allowing them to be independently delegated) and (2) possibly moving services away from the current root-server instances. A second part of the proposal involves identifying parties for providing secondary service for the .ARPA zone.

The IAB will be working with IANA in determining the appropriate way forward, and the topic will be discussed further at the IAB retreat.

5. RFC Editor (Re)Structure Model

The group reviewed an initial draft of the RFC (Re)Structure Model, which will guide the next RFC Editor contract process. The intent is to separate two different concerns:

– Functional Model for the RFC Editor: needs public discussion

– Implementation of the Model: done by the IAOC

The sub-committee has developed a draft model to start the community discussion on the subject. It was noted that restructure of the RFC Editor would have impacts beyond just the IETF stream (e.g. Independent Stream), and that community discussion would need to be inclusive of these interests. Based on its oversight role, the IAB will conduct an internal review of the draft model, coordinate with the RFC Editor, and prepare the draft proposal for community comment and review. The topic will be discussed further at the IAB retreat.

6. Retreat Planning

The IAB made final preparations for the upcoming retreat. Though there are several business items on the retreat agenda, most of the retreat discussion will focus on architectural topics. Each board member will present one or more technical topics, with the goal of distilling these topics into a smaller number of work items for the IAB.

7. Errata Discussion

There was a short discussion on the status of the RFC errata work. A new draft is in progress; the proposal focuses on the responsibility for handling errata and any tool updates that may be needed.

8. IETF Liaison to TC46

Olaf gave an update on the TC46 liaison process.

9. Update on Joint Working Team (JWT)

Loa summarized the agreement drafted by the Joint ITU-T / IETF Working Team for MPLS:

– the MPLS architecture as defined by the IETF is suitable to extend with a Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)

– this will be done as extensions to the MPLS protocols within the IETF and according to IETF processes

– the name T-MPLS will be dropped

– ITU-T will only write documents as necessary for being able to continue their own work, normally this will be done by normative references to IETF specifications

– if there is a conflict between an ITU-T Recommendation and an IETF RFC in this area the IETF RFC takes precedence

This is a JWT-level agreement which will now be sent to the SG15 management for confirmation. The ITU is planning a press release announcing the outcome of the joint effort.

10. AOB

Stuart asked about the status of the document “What Makes for a Successful Protocol”, and offered some suggestions for improving the current draft. It was decided to wait until after the IAB retreat before conducting a last call, so as to allow for additional review and comment by IAB members.

It was also decided to start an IAB review of the document “Principles of Internet Host Configuration” after the retreat.

These minutes were prepared by Dow Street. Any comments should be sent to execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/