Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-22 2019-10-17 14:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2019-iesg-22-201910171400-00

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2019-10-17 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix) /  Operations and Management Area
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) / Routing Area
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
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
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
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area

REGRETS
---------------------------------
Heather Flanagan / RFC Series Editor
Barry Leiba (Futurewei Technologies) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Portia Wenze-Danley (ISOC) / Interim LLC Executive Director

GUEST
---------------------------------
Colin Perkins / IRTF Chair

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
Chris Box
Tim Costello
Leslie Daigle
Darren Dukes
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: I got a late management item from Ignas. Does anyone else need to add
anything?

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes from October 3 being
approved? Hearing no objection. Does anyone have an objection to approving the
narrative minutes from October 3? Hearing no objection to that.

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.

Ignas: Done.

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

Roman: That is still in progress. Thanks.

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

Eric: In progress.

     o Ignas Bagdonas to find designated experts for RFC 7317 [IANA
       #1146017].

Amy: This is a management item at the end of today's call.

     o Magnus Westerlund and Suresh Krishnan to draft an "AD Evaluation"
       checklist, and add it to the IESG wiki.

Suresh: Magnus put up an early version. I'll work on it as well and try to get
it done by tomorrow. Please keep it in progress.

     o Alissa Cooper to work with Liz Flynn and Alexa Morris to determine
       the optimum time for open agenda time for IETF 106 (before 10am as
       in Montreal, or longer lunch break, or something else).

Alissa: This is done.

     o Ignas Bagdonas to send the YANG Model format variation for each
       style of shepherd document write-up text to Alissa Cooper.

Alissa: This is done.

     o Magnus Westerlund to find designated experts for RFC 6255
       [IANA #1153266]

Amy: We'll mark this as provisionally done.

Amy: All the rest of the action items are from the retreat. I'll just mark all
of them in progress since they're new, unless anyone wants to go through them.

     o Roman Danyliw to write up how measuring deployments could factor into
       WG chartering/rechartering.

     o Alexey Melnikov to think about how to analyze how successful WGs and
       protocols are and why they failed or not.

     o Martin Vigoureux with Wes, Alissa, and Alvaro to work on some
       mechanism to obtain wider or private feedback from people who are
       disenfranchised; anonymous flagging of offensive emails to inform
       leadership; more opportunities for private feedback.

     o Alvaro Retana with Warren, Alexey, Martin, Barry, and Roman
       to work on more transparency in the Datatracker about how long each
       phase of doc process takes / New datatracker flag to indicate who
       has the ball, authors or chairs.

     o Alissa Cooper with Warren, Wes, Mirja, Alvaro, Martin, Eric, Ted,
       Robin (Zhenbin), Deborah, and Roman to work on organized representation
       of IETF in other fora; Running list of external events where we go
       explain IETF;  Hire marketing company to produce promotional material
       toward execs, universities, enterprises, OS communities.

     o Eric Vyncke with Barry, Warren, Robin (Zhenbin), Deborah, and Alexey
       will work on defining Special Interest Groups.

     o Alexey Melnikov and Warren Kumari to add keyword tags to WG charters
       to identify specs that pertain to some general concept.

     o Alvaro Retana to work on a framework for analyzing new proposals.

     o Adam Roach to work on a virtual social room for remote attendees
       (promoting #hallway)

     o Alissa Cooper and Roman Danyliw to create list of questions where we
       need answers about IETF participation to make better operational
       decisions.

     o Warren Kumari to work on acknowledging shepherds, directorate reviewers
       in a more standardized/formal way.

     o Barry Leiba and Warren Kumari to write a more concrete proposal to
       create intermediate step between DISCUSS and COMMENT - "Important
       Points."

     o Barry Leiba to write a proposal to have drafts expire after 3 months
     rather
       than 6 months.

     o Alvaro Retana to work on early shepherding.

     o Alexey Melnikov to organize IoT overview discussion with interested ADs.

     o Ignas Bagdonas to write a draft of an IoT Systems charter.

     o Mirja Kuehlewind to figure out if/how asking questions in advance can
       work for the IETF 106 plenary.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07  - IETF stream
   Implicit IV for Counter-based Ciphers in Encapsulating Security
   Payload (ESP) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alexey Melnikov

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

Michelle: I dropped Alexey a message this morning; the IANA section was changed
between the last version and the one we reviewed, and it removed the text that
says whcih registry the registrations were going in. That's probably something
we can fix with the RFC Editor. So point raised, please. We can fix it later.

Alexey via chat: Point Raised please.

 o draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions-07  - IETF stream
   CDNI Request Routing Extensions (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Amy: I have a Discuss; do we need to discuss it now or wait until Barry is back?

Roman: I think this is going to require a Revised ID.

 o draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-07  - IETF stream
   Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Hop-Limit Option (Proposed
   Standard)
   Token: Alexey Melnikov

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

Alexey: Put it in Point Raised please.

 o draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ttml-03  - IETF stream
   RTP Payload for TTML Timed Text (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Amy: I have a couple of Discusses for this document, and Barry could not be
here today.

Adam: My Discuss definitely will require a revised ID; there was a discussion
on the list about what needs to be added here. I don't want to speak for Barry
but there's a chance this will have to go back to the WG for a little more
work. It's definitely going to need a Revised ID.

Amy: We'll mark this Revised ID Needed and move on.

 o draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-tls13-02  - IETF stream
   Using TLS 1.3 with HTTP/2 (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Amy: There are no Discusses, so unless there's an objection now it looks like
this is approved; we'll put this in Point Raised for when Barry comes back.

2.1.2 Returning items

 o draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28  - IETF stream
   Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructures (BRSKI) (Proposed
   Standard)
   Token: Ignas Bagdonas

Amy: There are a few Discusses in the tracker; does anyone want to discuss them
now?

Ignas: The authors are paying attention to the discusses. I don't believe this
requires discussing now unless the discuss holders would like to. Definitely
addressing this will require a new ID.

Michelle: In the last few versions the authors added some registrations and we
sent those out for expert review yesterday. We'll keep you posted of the result.

Ignas: This is for the 7030, right?

Michelle: This was for xml registrations.

Ignas: Which is document 7030, if I'm not mistaken. We're talking about the
same thing.

2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items

 NONE

2.2.2 Returning items

 NONE

2.3 Status changes
2.3.1 New items

 NONE

2.3.2 Returning items

 NONE

3. Document actions
3.1 WG submissions
3.1.1 New items

 NONE

3.1.2 Returning items

 NONE

3.2 Individual submissions via AD
3.2.1 New items

 NONE

3.2.2 Returning items

 NONE

3.3 Status changes
3.3.1 New items

 NONE

3.3.2 Returning items

 NONE

3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
3.4.1 New items

 o conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines
     draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-07
     Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric Networking
   (ICN) (IRTF: Informational)
   Token: Suresh Krishnan

Amy: There are no Discusses, so unless there's an objection now, the conflict
review message is ready to go back to the IRSG. Hearing no objections, so we'll
send that.

3.4.2 Returning items

 NONE

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

 o Media OPerationS (mops)

Amy: I have a block. Do we need to discuss that today?

Mirja: I know Eric is in the car but this is also something I'd like to discuss
with the whole IESG. I'm a little afraid that we would have a hard time to
close this work again if we don't put expectations in the charter that this is
something new-ish we're trying and there will be a point where the IESG might
reevaluate if this was successful and then decide to continue these kinds of
efforts or close the WG. There is a clear point where if the WG doesn't have
interest anymore and no one is going we should close it, but if that's not the
case, if people go there and present stuff but the IESG figures out having a WG
for these efforts isn't the right thing to do, or we don't want to spend the
agenda time, or whatever, then it might be hard to tell people you can't have
it anymore if we don't set the expectations right. I think that should be
covered in the charter. And the second point here is to make it clearer that
this is currently an experiment and we don't want a whole bunch of other
similar WGs right now. Any thoughts?

Roman: I think that concern is real. Mirja, do you have a sense of what caveats
you'd want to put in the charter to bound this?

Mirja: That's a really good question. I'm not sure if we should call it an
experiment in the charter. Maybe adding a sentence that the IESG will
reevaluate the success or usefulness of the group in 18 months?

Roman: As a parallel to putting something like that in, we have a couple of wgs
in SEC that weren't making progress and that was added to the charter; either
stuff is resolved or the WG gets closed, and there was a time bound on that. I
wouldn't be uncomfortable with seeing that.

Mirja: The problem is that it's not clear what success would look like in this
case. In 18 months if the group is very active but we think it was a bad idea
to have these kinds of groups, we should also have an option to change
something. Giving some kind way to evaluate it is the harder part.

Roman: I concur.

Eric: What about adding that the AD can close this group at their discretion?

Mirja: I think that doesn't help because that's true of every group.

Adam: The time-bound suggestion sounds like a good idea to me as well. The
comment i'd make around what to evaluate is that at this point when we charter
a WG from scratch, it's kind of a subjective evaluation of whether or not we
think this is a good idea. I don't think we need to put a higher bar than that
in the reevaluation process; it can continue to be does the IESG continue to
think this is a good idea given the track record? I think that's relatively
safe. The time bound seems like a good idea and based on what Roman said, and
what's in the gendispatch charter that we're talking about here, maybe we need
to start thinking about a more generalized mechanism for sunsetting charters on
groups that have this kind of character. Say we're chartering them explicitly
for an 18 or 24 month period, at which time the charter expires and will need
to be renewed, or something along those lines. There have been groups in the
past with that kind of clause and it just gets overlooked or lost because
there's no means for tracking it. Putting a reevaluation clause in there is
probably a good idea.

Mirja If that clause is in there I will happily clear my Discuss. I was hoping
we could even say more but it's hard to say more in the charter, I guess. Eric
said in the chat that adding this sounds good. I guess there's nothing more to
say here.

Amy: Until that block is cleared this can't go anywhere. We'll wait for Eric to
give us instructions once the charter text is updated and you're satisfied.

Adam: Real quick for Eric, I have some offlist connversations with Leslie going
and I expect she's going to make some proposals, so please do wait for those.

Mirja: She did make a proposal already.

Adam: Sorry, I missed it. Thanks.

Amy: So we're waiting for Eric on that.

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

 o General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

Amy: There are no blocking comments, so unless there's an objection now it
looks like this is approved.

 o Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange (lake)

Amy: There are no blocking comments, so unless there's an objection now it
looks like this is approved.

Ben: I plan to line up another chair, but I don't think we need to hold up
anything for that.

Amy: We'll send this announcement tomorrow.

4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

 NONE

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

 NONE

5. IAB news we can use

Wes: Yesterday's call was fairly short because people were out. I'd have to
look at my notes but I don't think there was anything major worth reporting.

Ted: The last RFC editor call with the community is later today/early tomorrow
depending on your time zone.

Wes: We also discussed the ABCD BoF vs holding a potential workshop, which has
been floating around for a quite a while. The decision was that we're not going
to make any decision until after the ABCD BoF becuase it would be premature to
do that without the conclusion of the BoF.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1153266] Designated experts for RFC 6255 (IANA)

Amy: Magnus has found two experts for this registry. Any objection to approving
Fred Templin and Scott Burleigh? Hearing none, we'll send note to IANA.

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

Amy: Is there any objection to approving Kent Watsen as the expert for this
registry? Hearing none, we'll send note to IANA.

6.3 IETF 106 Conflict Resolution (Liz Flynn)

The IESG went through the pre-preliminary IETF 106 agenda with the IESG to
discuss conflicts.

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

Amy: There are still three BoFs for which we need the name of at least one
chair. We need to get in touch with chairs about BoF posters.