Minutes interim-2022-ietfiana-04: Tue 12:00
minutes-interim-2022-ietfiana-04-202211081200-00

IETF 115: IETF-IANA Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2022
 
Attendees:
 
Jari Arkko
Lars Eggert
Russ Housley
Cullen Jennings
Mirja Kühlewind
Kim Davies
Sabrina Tanamal
Amanda Baber
 
Introductions/Welcome
Review Action Items
IANA Services Activity/Performance
Operational Activities Updates
SLA Deliverables Updates
Topics for Discussion
Upcoming Meeting Schedule
 
I. Follow-up on action items:

IANA term usage: no change - still paused work.
 
II. IANA Services Activity/Performance:

For cumulative protocol parameter statistics since IETF 114 (July - 
September 2022), please see the IANA Plenary report posted here: 
https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/reports/

From July-September, we've maintained 100% processing goal times.
 
III. In our post-ticket "How Did We Do" survey:

July: 100% approval, 32.1% response rate

August: 93.8% approval, 53.3% response rate

September: 100% approval, 68.4% response rate
 
IV. Operational Activities Updates:
 
A. IANA received positive feedback, but also a complaint that after 
approving a request on a mailing list, the experts hadn't forwarded the 
request to IANA. We notified the experts in question and added notes to 
the TLS registries indicating that experts have a deadline for notifying 
IANA of approved requests.
 
Discussion: agreement reached that IANA requires clear start/stop 
signals in the process so as to report statistics that tell the IESG 
that an expert group is or isn't working.  The IESG has responsibility 
over the expert process.
 
Remediation to work on:

- IANA will revisit this issue with Barry and have more/clearer 
information about this in 8126bis.

- IANA will add more notes to registries governed by these expert review 
mailing lists telling people that reviewers have a certain number of 
weeks to notify IANA that a request has been approved and that they can 
contact IANA for assistance.

- IANA will begin referring to the expert reviewers as “volunteer expert 
reviewers” so as to indicate that they are not IANA staff and are 
volunteering their time.

- ADs should review special registration procedures and determine the 
value and benefit for the volunteer and process time required. 


B. Update on FY24 Operating Plan and Budget:

- Public Comment for FY24 PTI/IANA has been extended until November 
17th.

Priority projects for FY24 that are relevant to the IETF:

- Significant re-evaluation and redesign of the iana.org website, 
including mobile accessibility

- Reevaluate information security audit practices

- Registry Workflow System (Opal) project
 
C. Annual SLA renewal:

Earlier discussion of the section Services #2: Provide tool to provide 
transparency into IANA processing of Internet-Drafts, as well as 
https://tools.iana.org/public-view/  (a tool that allows submitter to 
check on status of registration request ticket before closure).
 
Discussion: The IESG provided feedback that the current ticket status 
tool referred to in the SLA provides minimal information and is 
outdated. IANA agreed to work with the IETF to re-evaluate requirements 
and, once agreed upon, build that out. For the purposes of the 2023 
Supplemental Agreement, it’s premature to put in requirements.  However, 
we are adding a statement that “The Parties shall work collaboratively 
together to develop a consensus on requirements for future reporting 
tools.”
 
ACTION ITEM: Added statement to Supplemental Agreement that “The Parties 
shall work collaboratively together to develop a consensus on 
requirements for future reporting tools.”
 
D. Designated expert contact outreach:

As of October 2022, we’ve contacted 332 experts. The purpose of this 
outreach is to confirm their email address and availability. We're also 
asking them to suggest additional/replacement experts (if appropriate), 
soliciting feedback, and updating them on IANA processes.

Results as of November: 19 resignations, 47 contact information update 
requests, and 173 responses that didn't require immediate action. 30 
addresses bounced, and 63 experts hadn't replied.
 
Discussion: IANA has sent the relevant ADs a list of experts who've 
asked to be replaced.  For experts who haven’t replied or the address 
doesn’t work, we should consider that they need to be replaced.

Open issue: how should IANA handle requests from groups of experts: i.e. 
if we should wait for all of them, wait for a majority, or act after the 
first expert replies.   It was agreed that by default, IANA should take 
the first response (approval or rejection), as the decision unless the 
experts have specifically told IANA to do otherwise.  IANA should add 
text to this effect in the template sent to reviewers.

ACTION ITEM: in expert outreach phase II, tell expert groups, "By 
default we'll proceed based on the first response, unless you discuss 
and prefer otherwise." Run this text by the IETF-IANA group before 
sending.

E. INT draft:

No fundamental issues.

F. TZ Database:

There are still challenges and conflicts that may appear again, but for 
now it seems stable. The Ukrainian issue was ultimately addressed by 
determining that "Kyiv" was sufficiently widely used in English-language 
sources to rename it from "Kiev". (This was not done immediately because 
renaming is not without costs.)

G. Charset mailing list migration:

The list is now active and managed by IANA. Approx. 120 members.

H. Registry workflow system:

Private Enterprise Number (PEN) request submission/processing system 
launched 2 November 2022.

Discussion: K. Davies: This is our long-term vision for evolving a 
service offering with a platform that understands protocol parameter 
registries. PEN was focused on because it's simple and high-volume and 
was backed by a 15-year-old system that we wanted to shut down. We now 
have a modern application for application and modification, and we think 
customers will appreciate it. We're going to work incrementally with 
more registries, moving to more esoteric ones in time. In parallel with 
the development work was a lot of work to harmonize/normalize registry 
record types and XML that didn't have a lot of constraints or was 
different for no compelling reason. We'll continue working on this, but 
that's our first milestone accomplished.

PEN draft: This was written because we didn't have a document that 
described the registry or defined its procedures.

I. Early reviews of documents:

IANA reviewed IANA Considerations section in all I-Ds on WG agendas for 
IETF 115. We sent comments on 67 documents, and we're trying to resolve 
some of them with the authors this week.

J. Annual engagement survey

Invites have been sent out, and the link will remain open until 24 
November 2022. Please fill it out if you haven't. Thanks for 
participating.

K. System Port Outreach Project 

IANA continues to contact all of the system port assignees and ask them 
whether they're still using the port and whether the contact information 
is up to date.  Out of a hundred messages sent so far, most resulted in 
bounces.

Discussion: A long time ago (up to 30yrs ago), the IANA policy was that 
if you asked for the TCP port, you got the UDP port, whether you wanted 
it or not. And ports were assigned to authors rather than the IESG. Part 
of the revamp a few years ago, part of RFC 6335, was that people are no 
longer automatically assigned UDP ports.

ACTION ITEM: IANA will provide slides and statistics in the next IETF-
IANA Meeting.

 
V.  Proposed IETF/IANA Meeting schedule:

In-Person March 2023 (Yokohama)

In-Person July 2023 (San Francisco)