Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-14 2019-06-27 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2019-06-27 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-14 2019-06-27 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2019-06-27 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

Amanda Baber (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Alissa Cooper (Cisco) / IETF Chair, General Area
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Ted Hardie (Google) / IAB Chair
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom) / Internet Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Adam Roach (Mozilla) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Sabrina Tanamal (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area

Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix) /  Operations and Management Area
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) / Routing Area
Michelle Cotton (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Heather Flanagan / RFC Series Editor
Wes Hardaker (USC/ISI) / IAB Liaison
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Barry Leiba (Futurewei Technologies) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area
Portia Wenze-Danley (ISOC) / Interim LLC Executive Director

Jenny Bui
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: Does anyone want to add anything new to today's agenda? Any other changes?

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes of the June 13 teleconference
being approved? Hearing no objection, so we will call those approved. Any
objection to approving the narrative minutes from June 13? Hearing no objection.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

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

Amy: Ignas said this is in progress.

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

Roman: This hasn't gone to the tools team. There are two mutually exclusive
courses of action that I've seen upvoted, so I need more feedback from the
group about which way we want to head before I can take it to the tools team.
I'd ask my colleagues to look on your list from yesterday at the mail type
reset data counters; we have a couple of options and I'm happy to explain what
those are if folks think that would be helpful. I'd love to move forward with
that. Do folks want to hear about the options or just go read their email?

Adam: They seem like they'd be really quick to summarize.

Roman: Sure. So at the offsite we were going back and forth about how the
counter should look relative to changes in major state and substate. There were
a bunch of different behaviors that were possible. There are two camps: one
says publish two counters, time in major state and another for time in
substate. The other option is to keep it as-is, except when you change
substates the user is asked if they want to reset the single counter to zero.

Adam: Between those two the second one is going to be most accessible. I think
a lot of people who use these aren't steeped enough in the arcana to have the
inclination to figure out why there are two different numbers and what they

Roman: The pushback I've heard is that you can't now understand the semantics
of that counter without reading the history log, which is another part of
arcana about who looks at that.

Adam: That's fair.

Roman: I'd prefer personally two counters, Martin said two counters, Barry said
reset. Those are the only folks who've shared an opinion.

Adam: I'll add my very weak preference to the reset pile.

Magnus: I think the importance would be to keep it automatic; I think that
means the two counters because I want to know who is responsible for the
current state. If it's not easy to get one counter to work with some of the

Roman: Any other opinions relative to those two options? In the absence of
agreement I think we don't do anything, unless folks disagree. I can continue
to have this open, but I haven't heard in a few weeks.

Ben: I'll throw in my weak preference for the reset, but it also seems like if
we're going to make people look at the Datatracker arcana, making us do it
seems more reasonable than making everyone else do it. Which I guess is an
argument for keeping it the way it is now.

Roman: I'll put together what we just said and poll on the list. If we can't
reasonably come to consensus let's keep it as it is.

     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: This is still 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: Still in progress. I haven't had a chance to do much on this but I'll
try to get to it next week.

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

Amy: Going to mark this one as done.

     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.

Roman: We have the text ready and I'm waiting for Barry to say he's
comfortable. I expect we'll send it out tomorrow or early next week for review.

     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.

Martin: I sent an email about half an hour ago. This is ongoing.

     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.

Amy: We had this waiting on at least one area.

Ben: I did not finish that yesterday like I planned. I don't remember if there
were other groups we're waiting on, or just SEC.

Eric: INT as well.

Ben: I wonder if we're at the point where we should break it out into separate
action items for the different areas so we don't have to remember each week who
is still left.

Amy: Okay, so any other areas except SEC and INT? I don't know where you're
keeping that listing.

Alissa: I think we're not keeping it anywhere. We talked about keeping it
somewhere but didn't actually do it. Would someone like to coalesce these into
one place?

Adam: I'll take this. Has everyone sent theirs to the list? I haven't seen a
lot of these. I can ping people offline for the ones I can't find.

Amy: I'll add that for Adam, and whichever areas you don't find, let us know
and we'll add action items for them individually.

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

Eric: Still in progress, and a reminder to all the ADs to fill in the
questionnaire and expected job description for the nomcom.

Alissa: Can you remind us what the deadline is?

Eric: July 14, so two weeks left.

Alissa: Usually we as a group review the generic description for ADs, and then
a specific one for each area. Maybe we should put that general one on the next
agenda to make sure everyone has looked at it. Although we're not having an
informal next week.

Eric: The week after will be a bit too late.

Alissa: I just want to make sure people have looked at it. We could do it the
following week.

Eric: I'll do reminders by email.

Alissa: Let's add a management item for July 11 just to make sure.

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

Suresh: Still in progress.

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

Roman: That's in progress, to give everyone an update. I'm going to do a few
more edits on the summary and bring that back to us to see if we're comfortable
with how the input from the community has been synthesized.

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

Alvaro: This is already on the agenda. Mirja has been coordinating with some
speakers. As long as we're on this topic, I want to bring up that we're talking
with the people who are going to present about posting an abstract or agenda
somewhere. Last time we had a BOF, so we tied that in the agenda and could put
the abstract there. Do people mind if we reuse that BOF so that when people
look at the agenda they can click and see what the abstract for this session
is? Or is that too weird, to use a concluded BoF?

Alissa: If it's an entry in the agenda I think it can be made to be clickable,
right? Or does it have to be a certain type of event?

Liz: To get a clickable link it has to be tied to an object in the Datatracker.
The plenary is an object, as are BoFs and WGs, but anything else doesn't get a

Alissa: Can it be another plenary?

Liz: I'll talk to Henrik and see what he thinks we should do.

Suresh: Should people need to register for the IETF to attend this? The
speakers are probably not going to attend the IETF. Should they need to
register for the IETF if they want to invite someone?

Alissa: My opinion is that everybody should register. If the speakers are just
coming for that day we can comp their registration. But I think the attendees
should all be IETF attendees.

Mirja: How would it work to get them a registration?

Alissa: Just send their names to me and Alexa.

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

Amy: Alexey is not with us today.

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

Alvaro: I sent a message to the IESG yesterday on what I'm planning to tell the
WG chairs. I'm planning on sending that text out later today or tomorrow if you
want to take a look. Depending on how much feedback we get from that, I may
want to talk at the chairs meeting in Montreal.

     o Alexey Melnikov to find designated experts for RFC 8554 [IANA

Amy: Alexey is not with us today.

     o Adam Roach to facilitate the discussion on WG Meeting Structure,
       related to alternate room layouts and the facilitation of

Adam: Keep this as in progress. I hope to get something out today.

     o Ted Hardie to write up use cases and requirements for Implementation
       Target Sets for a future IESG discussion (preliminary date for
       discussion: June 20, 2019 Informal Telechat).

Amy: That was done. The next four will be taken up at the end of the call.

     o Alvaro Retana to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-manet-dlep-
       multi-hop-extension [IANA #1145105].

     o Alexey Melnikov to find designated experts for RFC 8610 [IANA

     o Ignas Bagdonas to find designated experts for RFC 7317 [IANA

     o Magnus Westerlund to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-tram-
       stunbis [IANA #1146028].

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-09  - IETF stream
   GSS-API Key Exchange with SHA2 (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

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

Ben: I think we've been doing pretty well on the email list. We're just waiting
for the authors to update the document.

Alissa: Agreed.

Amy: Great. This is going to be a Revised ID Needed and we'll move on. Thanks.

 o draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-06  - IETF stream
   JSON Web Token Best Current Practices (Best Current Practice)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

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

Roman: No, I think we need to work that out on the list. Revised ID Needed.

Adam: I want to make sure the minutes reflect we had an opportunity to discuss
the addition of RFC 8017 as a downref. I think that's perfectly fine. Just want
that to appear in the minutes.

Roman: That's my fault, I missed that reference. If there's no discussion
relative to that I'll note it in the history log of the draft.

Amy: There's a whole list of downrefs for this document and 8017 does show in
them. I don't know if that's new or not.

Adam: The ones that were in nits, I think there's a bug there. It appears to
consider standards track documents to be of a lower level than BCPs. A lot of
things it's citing as downrefs are PS. The 8017 one is not.

Roman: As Adam said, 8017 is an update to 3447 which is there. In the downref

Amy: Okay. This will go into Revised ID Needed and you'll let us know when it's
ready to go and 8017 should be added to the downref registry.

 o draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-12  - IETF stream
   Efficient Route Invalidation (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

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

Alvaro: I don't think so. The authors will reply so I'd rather do that on
email. We're going to need a Revised ID.

 o draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-11  - IETF stream
   Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Additional Algorithm
   Identifiers for RSASSA-PSS and ECDSA using SHAKEs (Proposed
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless anyone has an objection
now this is approved.

Roman: Can you make that Revised ID Needed? I want to make sure all the
comments are incorporated.

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-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08  - IETF stream
   Enterprise Multihoming using Provider-Assigned IPv6 Addresses
   without Network Prefix Translation: Requirements and Solution
   Token: Martin Vigoureux

Amy: The consensus flag has not been set for this. Is this a 'yes'?

Martin: This is an informational document.

Amy: Did the WG come to consensus on it? Then yes.

Martin: I'll take Alissa's Discuss first. The Gen-ART reviewer had a good
point; the authors are not very responsive so I will push them. I understand
the point and I agree. Mirja, I do understand your point, however I was not
sure what type of changes, if any, you would be expecting to clear your Discuss.

Mirja: I did see the reply and I was planning to send something back. There
might even be no change, I just wanted to have another round of questions.

Martin: Okay, that's it from my side. Revised ID Needed.

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-aranda-dispatch-q4s-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-aranda-dispatch-q4s
     The Quality for Service Protocol (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Magnus Westerlund

Amy: I have no discuss positions so unless there's an objection now, it looks
like this conflict review message is ready to go. Hearing no objections, so
this is approved.

 o conflict-review-trossen-sfc-name-based-sff-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-trossen-sfc-name-based-sff
     Name-Based Service Function Forwarder (nSFF) component within SFC
   framework (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Martin Vigoureux

Amy: I have no discuss positions so unless there's an objection now, it looks
like this conflict review message is ready to go. Hearing no objections, so
this is approved.

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

 o Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (cbor)

Amy: We have a couple of blocks. Unfortunately Alexey is the person who
shepherds this WG and he can't be here today. Is there use in having these
discussions now? Adam, you had a process discuss?

Adam: It's not really process per se, a question of whether it makes sense to
keep this new, more expansive CDDL work under the CBOR WG or if we should split
it off into a new WG. Carsten responded that he thinks it makes sense to keep
it there and then we have a PR issue of helping people understand that CBOR is
no longer narrowly focused on CBOR but on something broader. I'm not sure how
compelling that is and I was really hoping to have a conversation with Alexey.
I'm going to want to hold on to this until I have a chance to touch base with

Ted: For what it's worth I tend to agree with you; I think a lot of people who
already know what CBOR is would have no clue that the additional CDDL work was
going on here.

Amy: It sounds like we'll wait for further instruction from Alexey about this
once he has time to discuss with the block-holders.

Adam: I think that's right. I hope we can move forward with this on the mail
list, although I'm going to be unavailable for the next six days. Hopefully we
can make some progress after that.

4.2.2 Proposed for approval


5. IAB news we can use

Mirja: Besides the announcement Alissa said that the IASA documents will go
through the IAB stream, no.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1145105] Designated experts for
RFC-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension (Alvaro Retana, IANA)

Amy: Any objection to approving Stan Ratliff and Rick Taylor as designated
experts for this registry? Hearing no objection, so that's approved and we will
send official note to IANA.

6.2 [IANA #1145107] Designated experts for RFC 8610 (IANA)

Amy: This is an action item for Alexey.

6.3 [IANA #1145040] Renewing early allocations for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps

Amy: It sounds like we are looking for an extension on the early allocation

Alvaro: Yes. It's already passed WG last call, so I'm hoping to see it very

Amy: Any objection to extending the early allocation for this document? Hearing
none, that's approved as well.

6.4 [IANA #1146017] Designated experts for RFC 7317 (IANA)

Amy: This has been assigned to Ignas, who's not here.

6.5 [IANA #1146028] Designated experts for RFC-ietf-tram-stunbis (IANA)

Amy: This has been assigned to Magnus.

6.6 Listing unstructured time on the 105 agenda

Alissa: The main question is what do we want to call it, and should we list it
on the agenda? We may have decided before but I don't recall.

Eric: We thought of a name but it's not in the minutes.

Mirja: Open time, I thought?

Alissa: Any objections to open time?

Eric: Open work time?

Adam: I have no objection to either name.

Alissa: It will technically be listed how it is now, 0830-0945?

Liz: Yes, that's what we landed on. The question is whether to put something in
that says open time every day or leave it off.

Alissa: I think we should put it on. Will there be side meeting signups every

Liz: Yes.

Alissa: Okay. Let's do Side Meetings / Open Time.

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

Alissa: We'll start building our agendas for our meeting in Montreal. If you
have a topic either for joint time with the IAB or IESG only, add it to the
page and in a week or two I'll start shuffling things onto our agenda for 105.