Minutes interim-2008-iab-30 2008-10-15
minutes-interim-2008-iab-30-20081015-00

Minutes IAB Teleconference 2008-10-15

1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, approval of minutes, administrivia

1.1. Agenda

1.2. Attendance

PRESENT

Gonzalo Camarillo

Stuart Cheshire

Lars Eggert (IESG Liaison to the IAB)

Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)

Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)

Russ Housley (IETF Chair)

Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)

Gregory Lebovitz

Barry Leiba

Kurtis Lindqvist

Danny McPherson

Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)

Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)

Dave Thaler

APOLOGIES

Loa Anderson (IAB Liaison to the IESG)

Andy Malis

David Oran

Lixia Zhang

1.3. Administrivia

Two agenda items were added to all other business (AOB): Headers

and Boilerplates and the RFC Editor model. It was also decided to

tentatively schedule a techchat on 11/26, the week following

IETF 73. The techchat topic will be determined at a later date.

1.4. Meeting Minutes

The IAB approved final minutes for the 2008-05-07 meeting.

2. Liaison Reports

2.1. ISOC Liaison

Lynn gave a brief update on the recent Russian Association for

Networks and Services (RANS) conference held 23-25 September in

Moscow. Olaf participated in the meeting on behalf of ISOC, and

had emailed a few notes to the IAB during the conference week. It

was agreed that there were no immediate IAB actions resulting from

the conference, with the possible exception that an upcoming issue

of the RANS journal could have an article on IETF happenings. Olaf

suggested using the IETF journal as an initial resource, and will

coordinate with RANS staff if any additional information is

needed.

On a separate topic, Russ commented that there was new ITU work

brewing in the area of locator-identifier split. This topic was

discussed later in the agenda.

(no ISOC Liaison written report submitted)

2.2. RFC Editor Liaison

Sandy gave a short summary of the RFC Editor Liaison written

report, highlighting recent progress in converting RFCs to PDF

format, and noting a recent discussion of how to cite “works in

progress”. It was agreed that the latter issue was beyond the

scope of what the RFC Editor should attempt to decide autonomously;

a discussion of the topic is taking place on the rfc-interest

mailing list.

(begin RFC Editor written report)

RFC Editor Report to the IAB

1) The RFC Online Project

We have scanned 64 of the 66 RFCs not online. We are updating our
database as necessary and are working to make these documents
available from our repository. We expect to complete the RFC
Online project before IETF 73 (i.e., minimally, each document will
have a .pdf file).

For example, please see:

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc109.pdf

We are working on getting 50 of the 66 files into ASCII format; 16
have already been placed online.

2) We have received a request to consider allowing I-D strings in
references, and listing them as expired internet-drafts because
listing them as "Works in Progress" is misleading. Current RFC
Editor policy states (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-
style-manual-08.txt):

Non-normative references to Internet Drafts are allowed, but they
must take the following restricted form: the author(s), the
title, the phrase "Work in Progress", and the date; for example:

[doe13] Doe, J., "The Deployment of IPv6",
Work in Progress, May 2013.

We understand that the documents have already expired, and are
therefore no longer works in progress, but the format for citing
internet-drafts is as appears above. We believe this is a content
issue that needs to be discussed in a larger forum.

We would appreciate your comments. Note that Julian Reschke has
initiated this discussion by sending a message to the rfc-interest
list. Please see:

http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2008-
October/000888.html

(end RFC Editor written report)

2.3. IESG Liaison

Lars summarized his written report, noting that the IESG had

rejected an appeal from JFC Morfin, and was considering an appeal

from Fred Templin. Russ added that JFC had asked for the creation

of new IETF-hosted mailing list, and that such a list might be

possible depending on the conditions of the request (e.g.,

identification of a suitable list moderator).

There was a short discussion of the IESG decision process,

especially when documents have a complicated set of DISCUSSes. The

IESG is working to clarify the process and improve decision

transparency, and will be discussing the issue further during the

Minneapolis meeting. Lars also noted the recent IAB query from

Magnus related to RFC 3424, and whether the guidance

(begin IESG Liaison written report)

IESG Liaison Report to the IAB
2008-10-15

The IESG has rejected an appeal from JFC Morfin. The title of this
appeal is "Appeal to the IESG Concerning the Way At Large Internet
Lead Users Are Not Permitted to Adequately Contribute to the IETF
Deliverables". The appeal response has been posted.

The IESG has received an appeal related to its decision to issue a
temporary "do not publish" for draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp
(independent submission targeted at Informational). The IESG will
discuss this decision during one of the next telechats in order to
consider community feedback it received after its decision was
announced.

The IESG has closed the IP over Resilient Packet Rings working
group (iporpr) in the Internet Area.

The IESG has issued the text of a proposed "IESG Statement on the
Usage of Assignable Codepoints in Specification Examples" to the
community for feedback.

The IESG has been discussing modifications to its balloting
procedures that are intended to streamline the processing of
documents that have received DISCUSSes. A second goal is to
simplify and clarify those stages of the current balloting
procedures that are most unclear to the wider community, in order
to increase transparency.

The IESG has been discussing how specifications can normatively
refer to protocols for which no specification (closed or open) is
available - specifically: rsync.

Spencer Dawkins has resigned from the IESG Scribes team.

Jari Arkko has detected that some working group charters on the
IETF web site are still severely outdated. This corruption occurred
and was brought to the attention of the secretariat during the
transition from NSS to AMS and was assumed to have been since been
fixed.

Magnus Westerlund sent a request to the IAB regarding RFC3424
("UNSAF") and whether it is still a requirement to provide answers
to its considerations.

The IESG received a query from the community asking it to clarify
its statement on SPAM control.

(end IESG Liaison written report)

2.4. IRTF Chair

Aaron reported that two new chairs had been identified for the P2P

research group. They are researchers who have been following the

ALTO activity, and have already identified research areas related

to that work. The new chairs are in the process of revising the

charter, and should be finished by the IETF meeting.

(begin IRTF Chair written report)

- draft-irtf-rfcs-03 submitted to the RFC Editor

- draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-06 being reviewed by IESG according
to IRTF process

- Meeting at IETF-73: MobOpts, HIPRG, DTNRG, ICCRG, RRG

- Identified 2 chairs for P2PRG who are working on a revised
charter that will (among other things) help inform ALTO wg

- Moved www.irtf.org to IETF servers; changed IETF-hosted lists to
have irtf.org domains instead of ietf.org (the previous situation was
an artifact of having the web site served from a different site than
the mailman servers).

- Continued (low level) interest in a 'network virtualization'
RG; expecting a problem statement draft before
IETF-73; probably another bar BoF

An addendum:

Four recent RFCs published from IRTF RGs:

- RFCs 5325, 5326, 5327 -- LTP specs -- published by DTNRG

- RFC5345 -- Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Traffic
Measurements and Trace Exchange Formats -- published by NMRG

(end IRTF Chair written report)

3. Timeline for IAOC Selection

Gonzalo has been organizing this item for the IAB, and during the

call he summarized the schedule for selecting a candidate. There

was a short discussion of the timeline: call for nominations,

announcement of nominees and call for feedback, and IAB selection.

Gonzalo suggested using the NOMCOM questionnaire as a template for

the questions that would be asked of IAOC candidates, and he asked

board members for feedback and/or suggested modifications.

The board will start the process in early November and make a

selection in January 2009.

4. Feedback on DNSSEC Deployment

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) National Telecommunications

and Information Administration (NTIA) recently requested feedback

on several approaches to signing the DNS root. There was consensus

among members that the IAB should send a response, and the group

spent some discussing what that response should include. Two key

points that were identified were:

– The IAB supports DNSSEC for the root, and sooner is better.

– The method selected for deploying DNSSEC should not modify the

trust that users currently place in the Domain Name System.

Olaf will write a draft response and send it to the IAB for review.

5. IAB Schedule / Planning for IETF 73

The IAB reviewed their agenda for the upcoming IETF, and decided to

schedule a discussion of the P2P topic on Sunday afternoon. Gonzalo

will revise the P2P draft over the next week or two and prepare to

lead that discussion. Dave Thaler will present the “Evolution of

the IP Model” as the technical plenary topic. His presentation

will be followed by a panel-style Q&A session with all members of

the IAB.

As part of the shepherding role, all board members were also asked

to talk to their respective liaisons prior to the IETF. This will

help to identify any open issues that could benefit from face-to-

face discussion in Minneapolis.

6. Outline of Response to UN Enhanced Cooperation

Dow walked through a draft outline for the IAB’s response to the

UN on the topic of “Enhanced Cooperation”. Several board members

had previously submitted comments and suggestions. Dow will draft

the the text of the letter and send it to the IAB for review. The

letter will provide an overview of the IETF role, structure, and

processes as related to open participation and development of the

Internet.

7. Locator-Identifier Split ITU Liaison / Flow-Aware Forwarding

Olaf gave some background on an effort to initiate IP-related

locator-identifier split work in the ITU. The group interested in

this work had previously brought their idea to the IETF, but found

the IETF hard to work within, suggesting this might be an attempt

to end-around IETF processes. Since the work would impact IP, the

routing and transport ADs have drafted a liaison statement to the

ITU-T. Loa will draft an email that provides further context and

references the liaison statement. After review by the IAB, this

mail message will be sent from the IAB to the ITU leadership to

ensure they are aware of the situation.

The discussion then turned to a second ITU-T-related topic. There

has been recent work in SG-11 in the area of flow state aware

forwarding. Lars provided some background on this work, which has

had some prior discussion within the IETF and could impact IETF

protocols. At a minimum, the proposal requires a number of code

points, so would eventually require IESG approval. Since the

proposal is being driven primarily by the Telecommunications

Industry Association (TIA), coordination on the issue is

essentially a three-party problem (IETF, TIA, ITU-T). The IAB

agreed to query Scott Bradner (ITU-T Liaison) for more background,

and to set up a small-group meeting in Minneapolis to determine

next steps.

8. Anycast / IAB-IANA Documents

Danny recently updated the anycast document and had sent it out for

review. Some comments have been received, and Danny requested that

the rest of the IAB review the latest draft so as to determine

whether to make this an IAB document.

Danny also just updated the IAB-IANA draft after feedback from

Leslie and Kurtis. The document is in pretty good shape, and

should be useful for some upcoming meetings with the US DoC and

IANA. Danny will send the updated document to the IAB for review.

9. Approval of draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932-04 bis

Olaf described that the IAB Statement documented in the 3932bis

draft has the following statement:

In its capacity as the body that approves the general policy

followed by the RFC Editor (see RFC 2850 [I4]), the IAB has

reviewed this proposal and supports it as an operational change

that is in line with the respective roles of the IESG, IRTF, and

RFC Editor.

He then asked the board for explicit verification that there was

agreement on inclusion of this statement in 3932bis. Dave Thaler

is the editor of RFC 4846, a related document, and expressed his

support. There were no other objections from the board.

10. AOB

10.1. Headers & Boilerplates Draft

Olaf asked for final IAB comments on the Headers & Boilerplates

draft, which he will update once more before beginning a community

call for comments. Since this document is related to RFC 3932bis,

the intent is to begin the community call for comments in the next

few days, allowing the documents to be moved forward together.

10.2. RFC Editor Model

The IAB had approved the RFC editor model at their last meeting,

and Olaf reviewed the current status:

– The plan is to document the things that are learned during the

implementation.

– The draft has been posted to the RFC-interest mailing list.

– There was some feedback from John Klensin that the document is

not ready, and Olaf will try and address those concerns in an

update to the draft.

– If there are significant changes based on those comments, Olaf

will bring the document back to the IAB prior to public comment.

Otherwise, the update will be directly distributed to multiple

lists for further public comment.

There were no objections to this plan. There was also some

expectation that the forthcoming RFC Editor Model RFC would be

updated in 2 years after learning from this contract cycle.

11. Conclude Call