Minutes interim-2023-ietfiana-01: Tue 02:30
minutes-interim-2023-ietfiana-01-202303280230-00

IETF-IANA Leadership Meeting Minutes from 28 March 2023:

MEETING MINUTES – BEGIN

Summary of Meeting Minutes
IETF 116
28 March 2023

Attendees:
H. Alvestrand
J. Daley
L. Eggert
M. Kuehlewind
J. Yao (remote)
R. Housley
A. Baber
J. Mitchell
K. Davies
S. Tanamal

I. Introductions/Welcome

James Mitchell, IANA technical director, is present leading a design team that
is tasked with identifying how to change the cryptographic algorithm used to
sign the DNS root zone.

II. Review Action Items and Projects

IANA term usage
PAUSED (project to simplify usage requirements of word IANA)

System Port Outreach Project
Background: draft-kuehlewind-system-ports (Reassignment of System Ports to the
IESG), intended to reassign change control for unused system ports and system
ports maintained by the IETF. Went to IETF Last Call in February 2020, received
considerable feedback and is under review. Outreach efforts are ongoing. Most
result in bounces. Bounces: 206 No response: 24 Response: still in use: 25
Response: still in use; contact updated: 10 No email listed in the registry: 59

·         For ports marked Jon Postel, will probably go back to IESG
·         The original intention was to reassign ports.
·         Comment that all system ports are the IESG’s and it was a mistake to
assign them to individuals.  IANA received responses from 35 individuals saying
it was still in use.

      3.    Designated Expert (DE) Outreach: is now in Phase II
Project Update:
·  Phase I completed: As of March 2023, we’ve contacted 335 experts to ask them
to confirm their availability, provide feedback, and (if appropriate) suggest
other experts.

Total experts: 335
Responses received: 283 (84%)
Bounces: 27 (8%)
Suggested additional experts: 43
Resigning: 25
·         Sent designation requests to ADs. Phase II (contacting groups of
experts) will start after ADs provide suggested/replacement experts. ·        
For registries where there is a group of experts, IANA is telling the experts
that “By default we’ll proceed based on the first response, unless you discuss
and prefer otherwise.” ·         IANA plans on contacting DEs more regularly
about their status ·         IANA has sent the ADs a list of experts who are
resigning. After a certain point, could IANA use the IESG as the DE? ·        
There are a few hundred registries that are Expert Review but have no expert
designated yet. Discussion: ·         Suggestion that for registries that are
not active for a long time (time span must be defined), the IESG is assigned as
the DE. ·         Should the IESG push back on registries whose DEs need to be
managed? ·         Can specifications be written so there is no need for an DE
·         For registries pending a DE, it can take 4 or more weeks to get an
expert when a request comes in. ·         The IESG has always had the right to
act as the decision maker. Designated Experts were created to reduce the IESG’s
workload. ·         If an RFC says that expert review is the policy, we should
take it seriously. Current Recommendation Under Consideration: ·         IESG
to publish a statement: When there is no assigned DE, or IANA cannot get a
response, IANA will assign the IESG as the DE. ·         When IANA gets a
request where there is no expert, IANA will contact the AD with "we've received
a request; do you want to make a decision or designate an expert? If you
believe there will be very few requests for this registry, designating the IESG
as the contact point is also an option." But for new registries IANA will
continue asking: "Please designate an expert for this."
             ACTION ITEM:
·         IANA will provide a summary of expert outreach project findings (what
we've done, what we've found, what we understand the IESG wants to clarify) ·  
      Follow up with IESG on how they want to proceed (confirm whether to adopt
the current recommendation) and how to communicate it

     4.     IANA Services Activity/Performance
·         From November-February, IANA has maintained 100% processing goal
times. For cumulative protocol parameter statistics since IETF 115 (November -
February 2023), please see the IANA Plenary report posted here:
https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/reports/ ·         Fiscal Year 2024
(FY24) Operating Plan and Budget. Adopted in March 2023. ·         Fiscal Year
2025 (FY25) Operating Plan and Budget. Public Webinars will take place in July.
Invitations will be sent out to the IETF community and leadership.

     5.      Operational Activities Updates
The 2023 Supplemental Agreement: Approved and signed by both IETF LLC and ICANN
Posted:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ietf-iana-agreement-2023-14mar23-en.pdf

     6.     SAC113 Implementation (Private use TLD)
·         Public Comment closed this month. The comments didn’t seek to
materially change the approach.. ·         Informal candidate assessment
started with about 15 strings.. ·         If IANA runs into a preferred string
candidate that may have complications, IANA can reach out to IESG, IAB etc. ·  
      If IETF wants to contribute candidates for us to assess, you may do so
and we can reach out to you before the second public comment period. ·        
Anything that's still under review from the 2012 round would be ruled out ·    
    This is complementary to the .alt draft

     7.       PEN Document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pti-pen-registration/
Published as RFC 9371

     8.       INT Document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/
With the RFC Editor. Approved for publication on 01/09/23

     9.       Registry workflow system
Private Enterprise Number (PEN) request-submission processing has been going
well since launch. Planning for subsequent features and releases (Phase II).

     10.    IANA performed early review of documents prior to IETF 116
Reviewed IANA Considerations for all documents on IETF 116 WG agendas.
Contacted authors about 82 documents.

     11.    Annual engagement survey results
Low participation rate. Exploring other options to receive feedback. It was
suggested that IANA have a discussion directly with the IESG, but this prevents
statistical year-on-year comparable. It was pointed out that with such a small
group, it is hard to have statistical significance.

III. Scheduling future IETF-IANA Leadership Meetings
Most lunch dates during the week present scheduling conflicts.  Agreed to poll
the team about a month before IETF 117.

IV. AOB
               PLENARY REPORT: IANA asked about changing the format from a
               slide deck to a narrative form, and will deliver a prototype for
               the next meeting.

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS:
- IANA: write up expert outreach findings/issues for use in IESG statement/blog
post - IANA: produce plenary report prototype.

MEETING MINUTES - END