Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-17 2019-08-22 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2019-08-22 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-17 2019-08-22 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2019-08-22 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

Deborah Brungard (AT&T) / Routing Area
Michelle Cotton (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
Wes Hardaker (USC/ISI) / IAB Liaison
Ted Hardie (Google) / IAB Chair
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom) / Internet Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Barry Leiba (Futurewei Technologies) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Adam Roach (Mozilla) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area

Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix) /  Operations and Management Area
Heather Flanagan / RFC Series Editor
Portia Wenze-Danley (ISOC) / Interim LLC Executive Director
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area

Dominique Barthel
Jenny Bui
Brian Campbell
Erik Kline
Pascal Thubert
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda
1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes from the August 8 telechat
being approved? Sounds like those are approved. I saw final narrative minutes;
is there any objection to approving those? 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 is not here so we will mark this still in progress for him.

     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: Still 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.

Martin: Nearly finished. I'm waiting for Adam to confirm initial thoughts. It's
nearly done.

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

Eric: Still pending for Victor to reply but he's on vacation for two weeks. I
expect more for the next telechat.

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

Suresh: I thought we closed this last time. This has been started by Scott and
I'm not going to lead this. This is done.

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

Roman: I've almost done the final response based on everyone's input; please
mark as in progress.

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

Alexey: All my items are in progress. I have made some progress on this one.

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

Alvaro: This is done.

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

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

Amy: Alexey indicated all his items are in progress.

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

Amy: We will mark this in progress for Ignas.

     o Adam Roach to collate the list of specific "hot topic" items from
       each Area that will be provided to document authors and post it on
       the wiki.

Adam: Leave this in progress. Thanks.

Warren: The ops side of this is done and posted in the ops wiki. I don't think
the management side is, but feel free to share the ops side if you want. Will
send an email pointer.

     o Alvaro Retana to find designated experts for RFC 5613 [IANA

Amy: This is on the agenda later so we'll mark this provisionally done.

     o Barry Leiba to come up with a proposal for moving Last Call
       discussions to a separate mailing list.

Barry: Working on this and it will be done by the end of the day.

     o Suresh Krishnan to ask Heather F and Sandy G to introduce the
       Updates Tags Document (draft-kuehlewind-update-tag) to the RFC-Interest
       email list for discussion, and inform the community via the IETF
       discussion list with a pointer to RFC-Interest.

Suresh: I haven't done this yet. I'll have a chat with Sandy and Heather.

     o Adam Roach to send a message to the tools team cc Roman as
       liaison about removing the required date associated with milestones on
       WG Charters.

Adam: Also in progress.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-05  - IETF stream
   DLEP Link Identifier Extension (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

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

Alvaro: No, we don't need to. Rick, one of the authors, has already replied to
Suresh. We'll need a revised ID please.

Suresh: Thanks Alvaro. Sounds good to me.

 o draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-16  - IETF stream
   OAuth 2.0 Mutual TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound
   Access Tokens (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

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

Roman: We do not. I think the mailing list conversation is going well; thanks
for all the feedback. If you could just mark this Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21  - IETF stream
   Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) and fragmentation for
   LPWAN, application to UDP/IPv6 (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Suresh Krishnan

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

Suresh: I don't think so; I think the discussion is going well on the list, and
Eric's one is almost done. We can do this on the list but it's certainly going
to require a Revised ID.

 o draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26  - IETF stream
   YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

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

Alvaro: No, I don't think so. I want to have the authors reply to Ben.
Otherwise I think we need a Revised ID.

 o draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-10  - IETF stream
   Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Deborah Brungard

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

Deborah: I don't think so. Let's stay in IESG Evaluation, Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk-06  - IETF stream
   Using Pre-Shared Key (PSK) in the Cryptographic Message Syntax
   (CMS) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

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

Roman: We do not. Again, good feedback. Please mark this as revised ID needed.

 o draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements-03  - IETF stream
   Enhanced Feasible-Path Unicast Reverse Path Filtering (Best Current
   Token: Warren Kumari

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

Warren: I don't really think we do, unless Alvaro wants to say anything. The
authors are working to address the Discuss.

Alvaro: I think we've already settled on something; I'm just waiting for an
update. Thanks.

Amy: Sounds like it will require a Revised ID.

Warren: Yes.

Amy: I did have a secondary question about this document. I think we found a
bug in the datatracker. It says there's a downref to a draft standard, RFC
4271. That doesn't sound right--that's a bug?

Warren: That sounds like a bug to me.

Alvaro: Because this is a BCP and 4271 is just a Draft Standard.

Adam: We've seen this before. Those are supposed to be considered the same
level of maturity for the purposes of downrefs, but the tools don't treat them
as such.

Amy: So it is just sort of a tools sticky wicket here. Thanks.

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-tls-grease-03  - IETF stream
   Applying GREASE to TLS Extensibility (Informational)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: I have no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now it
looks like this one is approved.

Ben: This will need a revised ID and I wanted to give people one last chance to
opine about whether they want it to be standards track vs the current
informational. Obviously I think informational is okay, but I think we had at
least one person ask.

Alissa: Why was it informational in the first place?

Ben: There's not really any protocol interoperability or protocol
specification; basically it's just specifying some numbers and here are how you
can send them, but you should not expect any change in behavior in response.

Michelle: I dropped you a note; we are still waiting for another expert to get
back to us on this.

Ben: I did see that note. Do you think we need to hold off on approving the
document until the other review arrives?

Michelle: It might the good because the first expert specifically said they
wanted another expert to look at it.

Ben: I guess I can put a placeholder Discuss on to make that happen.

Michelle: I can ping them today and copy you just so we make sure we have eyes
on it.

Ben: Thank you.

Amy: So this is not approved, but it is still waiting for a revised ID with a
new Discuss. Thank you.

 o draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-05  - IETF stream
   The IETF-ISOC Relationship (Informational)
   Token: Alissa Cooper

Amy: I have no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now it
looks like this one is approved.

Alissa: It needs a revised ID.

Amy: Great. This will go into Approved, Announcement to be Sent, 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-lewis-domain-names-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-lewis-domain-names
     RFC Origins of Domain Names (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Amy: I have no Discusses, so unless there's an objection now the no-problem
message can go back to the ISE with the current note in the tracker. Looks like
this is approved.

 o conflict-review-bruckert-brainpool-for-tls13-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-bruckert-brainpool-for-tls13
     ECC Brainpool Curves for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Version
   1.3 (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: I have no Discusses, so unless there's an objection now the no-problem
message can go back to the ISE with the current note in the tracker. Okay
great, this is good to go.

 o conflict-review-sekar-dns-llq-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-sekar-dns-llq
     DNS Long-Lived Queries (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Eric Vyncke

Amy: I have no Discusses, so unless there's an objection now the conflict
review can go back to the ISE with the current note in the tracker.

Ben: No objection from me; I'm going to ballot shortly. I did wonder if the ISE
publishes it as informational and someone later decides they want to move it to
historic, is there a process for that? I'm only familiar with the IETF stream
process for marking things historic. I don't know if the ISE can decide to do
that or not.

Alissa: Is that a problem for us?

Ben: I don't know if it's necessarily a problem for us; it might be something
that would affect Adrian's choice of what status to publish it in now.

Alissa: It's probably worth a note to him.

Ben: I'll put that in my position, which is forthcoming.

Michelle: We are waiting for an expert review on this. We can notify Adrian as
to what the result is, but we are waiting for that.

Eric: Thank you for the note, Michelle. Just for information, do you remember
two weeks ago I said we're waiting for an ISE document to be added to a cluster
about DNSSD? That was this document. So it will join the cluster and the three
documents can be read at the same time.

Amy: With all that said, and since the no-problem message does point the ISE
back to the datatracker for any comments, I think this can go with the note
that's currently in the tracker.

Eric: And just a question for everyone here. This is basically a protocol
that's been used by Apple for 10 or 15 years, and a few comments I've seen on
the ballot were that we should mention Apple in the title. I have no opinion
there, but what's the typical way we should do it?

Alvaro: In other protocols that have been published in the ISE, just to avoid
confusion, it's been mentioned that it's Cisco's protocol for this or that, or
Huawei's, since it's mostly theirs. I think in the introduction they say
they've supported it for a long time. But there are probably protocols that
have gone out without any specific mention.

Eric: Your suggestion is in the title or the abstract?

Alvaro: In the title.

Eric: I think that's fair. I see no problem there. I will make a suggestion to

Alvaro: Thanks.

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 Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (cbor)

Amy: There are no blocking comments for this recharter so unless there's an
objection now this is approved.

Alexey: By the way, Adam, I addressed your comments in the latest version.

Adam: Thank you, yes I noticed that. I appreciate it.

5. IAB news we can use

Mirja: No news this time.

6. Management issues

6.1 Designated Experts for Media Type Sub-Parameter Registry for video/raw
(Barry Leiba)

Amy: Any objection to assigning Roni Even and Ali Begen as experts for this
registry? Hearing none, so this is approved.

6.2 [IANA #1149474] renewing early allocations for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy (IANA)

Amy: IANA sent this to us because this is about to expire. Martin, you are the
AD of record.

Martin: The document has passed WG last call. [audio broken up] Recommend this
be approved.

Amy: Any objection to approving the extension, as Martin has said he would
prefer it gets approved again? Okay, hearing no objection to approving the

6.3 [IANA #1149477] renewing early allocations for
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy (IANA)

Amy: This is also approving an early allocation. The AD here is Alvaro.

Alvaro: This one is not in WG last call yet but it's one of the many segment
routing drafts that has been in line along with everything else that we've
processed recently. I have no issues with it being renewed.

Amy: Any objections? Hearing none, so this is approved.

6.4 [IANA #1147782] Designated experts for RFC 5613 (Alvaro Retana)

Amy: Alvaro would like the IESG to approve Gunter Van De Velde and Peter Psenak
as designated experts. Any objection to approving these folks? Okay, it looks
like they are approved.

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

Barry: I have something. Michelle has let me know there's a media type request
coming from the W3C side except it turns out to be actually coming from the
WHATWG. They want to register a media type in the standards tree and we have a
rule we have to approve the organization as an organization that is allowed to
register things in the standards tree. Because our relationship and history 
with WHATWG is a little odd, should we designate the WHATWG as an organization
that's authorized to register media types in the standards tree or does anyone
have angst about that?

Alissa: Don't we usually take these as formal items on the agenda?

Barry: I'm asking for a read on it ahead of time for guidance on how to proceed.

Ted: Can I ask a clarifying question? The current request is being funneled
through W3C, right?

Barry: Yes, but it is coming from the WHATWG.

Ted: But the WHATWG and the W3C went through a lot of pain to figure out what
their working relationship is; if they chose to do it this way rather than
having the WHATWG come to the IETF and ask for the right, it think it's best to
leave it up to the W3C and WHATWG to figure out. If WHATWG comes and asks us
directly, that's the time to make that decision, but I wouldn't interfere in
their still somewhat nascent working agreements to change anything without them
suggesting it directly.

Barry: I can proceed with this. I just wanted to get some sense whether there
were any other comments.

Alexey: This might be a good topic for conversation with the IESG.

Barry: Okay, I'm good. Thanks.

Amy: Any other business?

Alissa: People were asking about an update on the retreat location. Alexa and I
are going to be talking later today about all the options on the table, so
nothing is finalized yet. Amsterdam is looking likely; there are several venues
with availability. We're still waiting on one response but that ended up being
a place where we could find space. There are also possibilities in Berlin and
Barcelona if Amsterdam doesn't work out. The spot I was looking at in London is
not available and there were concerns about London anyway so we shifted to
continental Europe. Hopefully by the end of the day today or tomorrow we'll
have it nailed down.

Amy: It sounds like we are done for today. Thank you all.