Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-10 2019-05-16 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2019-05-16 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-10 2019-05-16 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2019-05-16 IESG Teleconference

These are not an official record of the meeting.
Narrative Scribe: Liz Flynn, Secretariat

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix) /  Operations and Management Area
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) / Routing Area
Michelle Cotton (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom) / Internet Area
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Barry Leiba (Futurewei Technologies) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area
Adam Roach (Mozilla) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area

Alissa Cooper (Cisco) / IETF Chair, General Area
Heather Flanagan / RFC Series Editor
Wes Hardaker (USC/ISI) / IAB Liaison
Ted Hardie (Google) / IAB Chair
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Portia Wenze-Danley (ISOC) / Interim LLC Executive Director


Cullen Jennings
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: Does anyone want to add anything new to today's agenda? Any other changes?
I will note the conflict review of jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile was pushed to May

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes from May 2 being approved?
Hearing none. Does anyone have an objection to the narrative minutes? Hearing
none, so those are also approved.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

     o Suresh Krishnan to discuss naming experts for the registries created
       by draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics with Colin Perkins.

Suresh: This is in progress. I sent all my earlier correspondence with Allison
to Colin and asked for his opinion, and I haven't heard back yet. Keep it on me
but this is really in Colin's court.

     o Barry Leiba and Ben Campbell to write up text on the IESG's
       expectations regarding conflicts of interest and the disclosure of
       funding sources.

Barry: Ben has done his part, so please remove him from the action item. My
part is still in progress.

     o Ignas Bagdonas to propose an additional question on YANG Model
       format validation for each of the styles of document write-ups.

Ignas: This is a work in progress and has been discussed by the Yang doctors.

     o Roman Danyliw to talk to the tools team to reset the counters on
       substate change for documents in AD Evaluation.

Roman: I've talked to the tools team and they've confirmed as a general thing,
the counters only reset on major state changes. I just wanted to confirm with
the IESG the only one we care about is AD Evaluation, and no others?

Magnus: Maybe, maybe not? I think there's some interest that we saw some of
these IESG Evaluation counters was in the 80s, and maybe we should think about
why that occurred and if that's representative or not.

Roman: I only ask because I was thinking perhaps we'd be equally interested in
things in IESG Evaluation when they switch between substates, like Revised ID

Alexey: I think so, yes.

Roman: Why don't I write up precisely which substates we care about, float that
back to the list to confirm, and then go back to the tools team with that. Does
anyone object to that?

Suresh: A suggestion for you; there's a sandbox you can play in if you want to.
I'll send you the info later if you want it.

Roman: I'm aware of some of that stuff, thanks.

Amy: So it sounds like Roman, we'll keep this in progress for you right now.

     o Roman Danyliw to draft text to be posted on about reporting
       protocol vulnerabilities via an email alias and possible procedures
       on how to assign triage resources.

Roman: Currently in progress.

     o Suresh Krishnan to write a document on replacing the "updates" with
       new terminology (amends/amended by; extends/extended by; see also).

Suresh: Haven't started on it, so please keep it in progress. I hope to have
something circulated to a smaller group by the next telechat.

     o Warren Kumari and Ted Hardie to write a document on Implementation
       Target Sets (aka Living Documents).

Amy: I saw the beginning of this; is this still in progress?

Warren: Yes, still in progress.

     o Roman Danyliw and Barry Leiba to draft a starting point for the
       discussion on setting expectations with the WG Chairs in reference
       to responses to inappropriate or unacceptable behaviors.

Barry: In progress.

     o Martin Vigoureux to work with the IESG to create a list of possible
       IESG Tutorials and will prioritize them for scheduling on a series
       of Informal Telechats.

Amy: Martin is not here, so I'm going to mark this as in progress.

     o Alissa Cooper and Alexa Morris to put together a Doodle Poll for
       possible dates and cost effective places for a second IESG retreat.

Amy: The Doodle poll part of this is done; I have a request from Alissa to
recirculate that so you can all fill out the poll. I'll put that in the jabber
in a moment. I don't think the cost effective places part has been done yet so
I'll keep this in progress.

     o All IESG to coordinate with their co-ADs and send a list of specific
       "hot topic" items that should be checked. The list to be provided
       for document authors.

Roman: SEC is in progress.

Warren: OPS is also sort of in progress.

Amy: I'll keep this whole thing in progress.

     o Eric Vyncke to write up draft text for the NomCom to help them
       understand the rules for the NomCom.

Eric: Just minor progress.

     o Suresh Krishnan to write up a NomCom Chair BCP (work with past

Suresh: I reached out to Scott and I'm trying to figure out who else will be
interested. Once I have three or four people we'll get started. Keep it in
progress; it's slow but it's ongoing.

     o Eric Vyncke to draft text for a more coherent BoF Proposal for
       MEDIA OPS and add to the BoF Wiki.

Eric: This one is close to be finished. 80 or 90% finished.

     o Roman Danyliw to shepherd the analytics discussion
       with the community.

Roman: I'm a little behind; I need to get with Greg to find out where we stand
with the latest version of the proposal, and any feedback from the IESG
retreat. In progress.

     o Warren Kumari, Alvaro Retana, and Mirja Kuehlewind with Spencer
       Dawkins to continue discussion of the next Deep Dive topic for
       IETF 105.

Warren: That's in progress and we're meeting and discussing stuff relatively

     o Suresh Krishnan to update the text for material behind a paywall
       to update the reference to section 7.1; update the document shepherd
       writeup; and draft text for a possible IESG statement to circulate
       with the WG Chairs.

Suresh: I sent out the text earlier so I think all comments have been
addressed. I'll sit with Barry to work out the shepherd writeup and I think
this should be done before the next telechat.

     o Alexey Melnikov, Warren Kumari, and Suresh Krishnan to work with the
       authors of the recall draft on next steps.

Alexey: I think this is in progress.

     o Alexey Melnikov to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-core-object-
       security [IANA #1141664].

Alexey: I haven't done anything about this one. Still in progress.

     o Alissa to report back on the discussion about the Meeting Room
       Policy at LLC Board retreat.

Amy: I know she sent text but I don't know if it's completely done, so I'll
keep this as in progress for her and she can check in on it later.

     o Alvaro Retana to finalize the proposal for relabeling the IETF
       Meeting Agenda Conflicts, and discuss the proposal with the WG

Amy: Alvaro could not join us today so I'll keep this in progress as well.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-perc-double-10  - IETF stream
   SRTP Double Encryption Procedures (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alexey Melnikov

Amy: I have a Discuss in the tracker; do we need to discuss that today?

Alexey: No, I think I'll wait for the authors and the WG to respond to this
one. Hoping we can get closure on this by email. So I suspect this is probably
Revised ID Needed anyway.

Amy: Okay, this will go into Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04  - IETF stream
   Packet Delivery Deadline time in 6LoWPAN Routing Header (Proposed
   Token: Suresh Krishnan

Amy: I have quite a number of Discusses; do we need to discuss any of those

Suresh: No, I think they all make sense, I've been through all the text and
started chatting with the authors. They've promised to have a response in a
week. I think the biggest issue that's common across a lot of the Discusses is
the back pressure; how do we limit that? I think there's additional text needed
there. The other big issue is the wraparound; I think we had text in there
before that somehow got removed in later revisions, so I think we can fix that
pretty simply. Just put that inn Revised ID Needed for now and the authors
promised to get back by next week.

 o draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-10  - IETF stream
   A Solution Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP
   Conferencing (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alexey Melnikov

Amy: I have a couple of Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss any of
those today?

Alexey: I don't think so, unless Discuss holders want to discuss them. There's
some followup on email on this.

Amy: Will it require a revised ID?

Alexey: I believe so, yes.

 o draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19  - IETF stream
   BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now
it looks like this one is approved. Okay, this one is approved. There are no
notes in the tracker, but Alvaro isn't here.

Deborah: Let's do it as Point Raised, so they can catch stuff if they need to.
I think there's some stuff they have to do.

 o draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24  - IETF stream
   IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

Amy: I have a Discuss in the tracker. Roman, as the Discuss holder, do you
anticipate your Discuss will require a revised ID, or should I put this in AD

Roman: I think it will be a minor revised ID.

Amy: Okay, we'll put it in Revised ID Needed for Alvaro. Thanks.

 o draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10  - IETF stream
   Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
   (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements (PCE) (Proposed
   Token: Deborah Brungard

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection it
looks like this one is approved. Okay, this one is approved. There are no
notes; are any needed?

Deborah: We'll do it as Point Raised.

 o draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13  - IETF stream
   Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over RESTCONF
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Ignas Bagdonas

Amy: I have a number of Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss any of
those today?

Ignas: Probably not, unless any of the Discuss holders would like to. The
authors are responding to comments and in general it appears this will get

Amy: It doesn't sound like anyone needs to discuss; will this need a revised ID?

Ignas: Yes it will.

 o draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-21  - IETF stream
   Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over NETCONF
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Ignas Bagdonas

Amy: I have a Discuss in the tracker; do we need to discuss that today?

Ignas: Same response from my side; if there's a need. But again, the authors
are responding and I'd say let's put that into Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis-15  - IETF stream
   TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Mirja Kühlewind

Amy: Mirja is not here, and the Discuss holder Alissa is not here either, so
I'm going to put this in Revised ID Needed.

2.1.2 Returning items


2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items


2.2.2 Returning items


2.3 Status changes
2.3.1 New items


2.3.2 Returning items


3. Document actions
3.1 WG submissions
3.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11  - IETF stream
   Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the
   Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) (Informational)
   Token: Deborah Brungard

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection it
looks like this one is approved. Okay, this one is approved. There are no
notes; are any needed?

Deborah: Let's do it as Point Raised so we can double check. I think they were
going to do some updates.

 o draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13  - IETF stream
   The TACACS+ Protocol (Informational)
   Token: Ignas Bagdonas

Amy: I have a number of Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss any of
those today?

Ignas: The highest number of Discusses on the whole telechat this time,
excellent. I don't see a need to discuss unless any of the Discuss holders
would like to. The authors for this document tend to not be that quick in
turnaround. This definitely will require a revised ID.

3.1.2 Returning items


3.2 Individual submissions via AD
3.2.1 New items


3.2.2 Returning items


3.3 Status changes
3.3.1 New items


3.3.2 Returning items


3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
3.4.1 New items

 o conflict-review-jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile
     Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA) Suite Profile of
   Certificate Management over CMS (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

This has been deferred until May 30.

3.4.2 Returning items


4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review


4.1.2 Proposed for approval


4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review


4.2.2 Proposed for approval

 o Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME (lamps)

Amy: There are no blocking comments for this re-charter, so unless there's an
objection now it looks like this recharter is approved. For you, Roman, the
milestones are out of date. That does not block it from being re-chartered,
that's just so you can go back to the wg chairs and ask them to update.

Roman: That's my plan to do that.

Amy: Other than that, it looks great and it's approved.

5. IAB news we can use

The IAB is currently on their retreat.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1142796] Designated experts for RFC 8554 (IANA)

Amy: It looks like we need someone to find experts for this?

Michelle: We usually put in here who it belongs to; did we not do that this

Amy: This is an IRTF document, so you may not have known who to assign it to.

Michelle: There we go. Do I have any takers to help us?

Suresh: I would think Alexey would be good because he's on CFRG. Sorry for
volunteering you, Alexey.

Barry: During my last time on the IESG we had decided the documents from non
IETF streams did not have standing to commit the IESG to appoint designated
experts. In order for other streams to create registries that require
designated experts, they needed to set up in their process some mechanism for
managing this.

Alexey: We've had several exceptions from CFRG already.

Suresh: That's part of what I'm following up with Colin about. This is going to
come up more and more. I want to figure out for the IRTF stream how to do that,
and that's the discussion I was having with Allison because I was the shepherd
for some of the conflict reviews, so I wanted to get this out of the way. I'll
keep you posted on the progress in the general case, but as Alexey said, we've
done a bunch of these before.

Barry: It should be easy because the IRTF has an IRSG that can handle this.

Warren: What would be helpful is if in the future, the IRSG knows someone that
would be good, they can drop a note over the wall to suggest them. I looked at
the RFC and I had no idea who would be a useful person.

Alexey: I can probably take action on this one.

Amy: Thank you, Alexey; we will assign that to you.

7. Any Other Business (WG News, New Proposals, etc.)

Amy: There's a Doodle poll for the BoF coordination call and this is your last
chance to fill it out; I'm choosing the date and time later today. Right now it
looks like it will be 10:30 AM ET (1430 UTC) on Tuesday 11 June. If you haven't
already given your position on when would be a good time for that, please do so