Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-23 2019-10-31 14:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2019-iesg-23-201910311400-00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2019-10-31 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-23 2019-10-31 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

narrative-minutes-interim-2019-iesg-23-201910311400-00
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2019-10-31 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
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Michelle Cotton (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Alissa Cooper (Cisco) / IETF Chair, General Area
Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
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
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
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area

REGRETS
---------------------------------
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) / Routing Area
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Heather Flanagan / RFC Series Editor
Wes Hardaker (USC/ISI) / IAB Liaison
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Portia Wenze-Danley (ISOC) / Interim LLC Executive Director

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
Chris Box
Leslie Daigle
Darren Dukes
Mike Jones
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Alissa: Lucky for us, we have Jay Daley joining us today. Jay is the new IETF
Executive Director. Typically the telechat is not in a great time for him
because of the time zone, but he's here today, so I wanted to introduce him.
We'll have more time to meet with him in Singapore.

Jay: Thanks Alissa. I'm the new IETF Executive Director. I think I know some of
you but not all of you. I started just a couple of weeks ago so I still have an
enormous amount to learn. I live in New Zealand which is normally a bad time
zone for this call. I still have an enormous amount to get my head around but
I'm pleased to be in this role. I think often in this type of community there
are people who come in with their own agenda. I don't have one except to help
the IETF get work done as efficiently and professionally as possible. So I look
forward to working with you all and if you have any specific questions please
fire away; otherwise we'll talk when we meet.

Alissa: Also, if people can think about their action items and if you need time
on the agenda in Singapore, please let us know.

Warren: If possible I'd like us to also talk about special interest groups,
either today or in Singapore.

Barry: I'd vote for Singapore.

Mirja: We have another informal next week.

Warren: I'm going to be in Singapore then, and as much as I love you all I
don't want to wake up at 3 am.

Alissa: It's actually on the last day of the ICANN meeting, I think. We'll be
in either Montreal or Singapore or somewhere in between.

Mirja: I was planning to make a final decision on the plenary question asking
thing so I hope people will be there. I don't think we can take it today
because we probably need some input from Alexa.

Alissa: I'll put this on the wiki for Singapore, Warren.

Amy: So nothing new except to think on your action items. Any other changes?

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Any objection to the minutes from October 17 being approved? Hearing none.
Any objection to the narrative minutes from October 17 being approved? Hearing
none. We also have the BoF Coordination call minutes outstanding from last
month. Any objection to approving those for posting? Hearing no objection there.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

     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.

In progress.

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

Eric: In progress. We may want to talk about it in Singapore.

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

Suresh: I made some changes to it, so I think it's good to look at.

Amy: Does this mean your action item is done or do you want to keep this in
prgoress until it's approved?

Suresh: For me it's done. Magnus, do you have thoughts?

Magnus: I haven't checked what you've done. You can mark it as done.

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

In progress.

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

Alexey: This is in progress. I need to think whether this eneds to be on the
list or whether this is a longer term thing. I'll come back to you; keep it on
the list for now.

     o Martin Vigoureux with Wes, 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.

Alvaro: Let's just say it's in progress.

     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.

Alvaro: We haven't really done anything here either. Mark this in progress, and
my other ones as well.

     o Alissa Cooper with Warren, Wes, Mirja, Alvaro, Martin, Eric, Ted,
       Robin (Zhenbin), Deborah, and Roman to work on organizing how IETF
       work is described and presented to external audiences.

Alissa: This is in my queue; no action yet.

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

Eric: We need to synchronize and be sure we name them correctly.

Warren: There are two different things, SIGs like MOPS, and this other thing
which we still have to name.

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

Alexey: We haven't done much on this. In progress.

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

In progress.

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

Adam: That is still in progress.

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

In progress.

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

Warren: Nothing yet.

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

Barry: That's in progress, and Warren and I should be able to take care of that
while we're both in Monteral.

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

Barry: This is progress and I expect it to be done by Singapore.

     o Alvaro Retana to work on early shepherding.

In progress.

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

Alexey: In progress.

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

Ignas: This is in progress.

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

Amy: I know Secretariat staff is looking at things for that and it's on the
agenda for the informal next week.

Mirja: Let's mark this as done. It's on the informal agenda.

     o Alexey Melnikov to find designated experts for RFC 8620 [IANA #1155192].

This is a new item for Alexey.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09  - IETF stream
   Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection it
looks like this one is approved. I'm hearing no objection. There are no notes;
is this approved and ready to go, Ben?

Ben: Before we move on I did want to talk about the IANA considerations. I
think the last proposal I heard was to delete the last sentence about
escalating to the IESG directly. Do people think we should just go ahead and do
that?

Barry: I think so, given Mike has expressed willingness to do that if it's our
decision, I think we're good.

Ben: Let's plan on doing that. I believe Mike is on the call to hear us say
that, so Mike, please go ahead and do that when you get a chance.

Amy: Does that mean we're waiting for version 11 or a note?

Ben: I think we'll wait for the version.

Amy: So it'll go into Approved, Announcement to be Sent, Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13  - IETF stream
   Minimal Security Framework for 6TiSCH (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Suresh Krishnan

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

Suresh: Not really. I think I have a good handle on the stuff in there. Some of
them are easy to resolve. Just put it in Revised ID Needed; a lot of them are
late breaking so I'll wait for the authors to get back. No issues with
understanding any of the Discusses, they are all very clear.

 o draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-14  - IETF stream
   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Digest Authentication Scheme
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Adam Roach

Amy: I have a Discuss here. Is that on version 13 and needs to be reviewed?

Adam: He did submit a correction to this. Alissa, have you had a chance to look
at that yet?

Alissa: No, I haven't had a chance.

Adam: Basically he tripled the length of the list by adding the -sess variant.

Alissa: He actually added them in individually? Wow, it's not even the most
recent diff.

Adam: Every time he got a comment, he'd address it. Even if you clear your
discuss this will go into AD Followup, but I think your point is addressed.

Alissa: You think the ABNF is correct now? Okay, I'll clear now.

Amy: So we'll put this in Approved, Announcememnt to be Sent, Point Raised. Let
us know when that's ready to go.

 o draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12  - IETF stream
   Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension
   for LSP Diversity Constraint Signaling (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Deborah Brungard

Amy: Deborah couldn't be here today. There are a couple of Discusses. Do the
discuss holders have a feeling if this will require a Revised ID?

Suresh: Mine would, I think, if they accept the issue. I proposed the text
change already.

Amy: We'll put that into Revised ID Needed and Deborah can pick it up when
she's back.

 o draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-01  - IETF stream
   Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection it
looks like this one is approved. This is the one that's hitched to our status
change that will be coming up shortly.

Warren: Yes, thank you. It is hitched to status change DLV to Historic, which
has also cleared. Both of these are now ready to proceed.

Amy: Yes, that's our next document. These will go forward together, you don't
need to add anything.

2.1.2 Returning items

 NONE

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

 o status-change-dlv-to-historic-02  - IETF stream
   Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status (None)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Amy: This is ready to move forward with the previous document.

3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
3.4.1 New items

 o conflict-review-jenkins-cnsa-smime-profile-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-jenkins-cnsa-smime-profile
     draft-jenkins-cnsa-smime-profile-01
     Using Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite Algorithms in
   Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: I have no Discusses; unless there's an objection, this conflict review is
ready to go back to the ISE with the note in the tracker. Hearing no objection,
so this is ready.

3.4.2 Returning items

 NONE

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

 NONE

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

 o Media OPerationS (mops)

Amy: There are no blocks in the tracker, so it looks like the charter is ready
to approve unless there's an objection now.

Eric: Leslie Daigle has commented on Mirja's comment with valuable additions.
I'd love to get this WG going on in Singapore, but can we wait a couple of
hours to get the last edit? It's a couple of lines to change, just some wording.

Amy: Yes, it can be pending edits to the charter and you can let us know when
it's ready to go.

Eric: And then it becomes a WG? Or is there another step to do?

Amy: You have all the pieces to become a WG; it has a chair and a mailing list
and it's good to go.

4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

 o EAP Method Update (emu)

Amy: I have no blocks, so it looks like this needs to go for external review.
Unless there's an objection now, this will go into external review and then
come back on the December 5 call. Hearing no objection, so that's what we'll
do. We'll check with Roman to make sure he's okay with sending an external
review message.

Ben: I can confirm that it's ready for external review. Roman and I had talked
about that being the right thing to do.

 o Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME (lamps)

Amy: I have no blocks for external review. Is that correct?

Ben: This is the same situation as emu, so we can go ahead.

Amy: Thank you, we'll get that sent.

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

 NONE

5. IAB news we can use

Mirja: The only small thing to announce is there are four IASA 2.0 documents.
three have been approved already and there's still a minor edit outstanding on
the fourth. That's going to be published soon.

Ted: Alissa agreed with the minor edit earlier this morning, so they're all
basically approved now. There will be one RFC Editor note.

6. Management issues

6.1 IETF Trust Appointment Process (Alissa Cooper)

Alissa: I have two questions: one is whether people are okay with the process
and timeline as outlined and the second is whether anybody wants to run the
process. Any concerns or objections to the process as specified in email? Would
anybody like to take this on? It basically involves sending emails and keeping
track of where we are in the timeline, scheduling time for us to discuss
candidates if we get more than one.

Suresh: I can do it.

Alissa: Thank you. I'll forward you the mails that were used last time.

6.2 Approve shepherd write-up text (Alissa Cooper)

Alissa: Originally I suggested some changes and sent it around, and people had
comments. Ignas and I went through it a couple days ago and made a few more
updates so that it now contains the yang references and also the MIB ones,
because we still occasionally have MIB modules coming through so we decided to
keep both. Amongst the 3 of us we thought that text was all ready to go and
thought that leaving the new question 20 separate from question 19 is probably
right since we left the MIB stuff in 19. I was going to ask if people were
ready to approve this but I saw mail from Alvaro so we should talk about that
before we talk about approving it.

Alvaro: What I was pointing out there was in question 11, we point to idnits
and something called the internet drafts checklist. I think the checklist is
way out of date and already sort of covered by idnits and other stuff we
usually point to like the rfc style guide. So the proposal is to take out the
part that says internet draft checklist. It would, however, be good if someone
else besides me looked at the checklist to make sure it's okay.

Adam: I looked at this a couple of years ago and there were substantial things
that did not seem to be covered in the shepherds writeup and were not
automate-able, so not included in the nits tool. I'm happy to go through again
and pull out the ones that I think qualify, but I suspect we need to
incorporate those things into the shepherds checklist directly, or keep the
checklist around in some capacity.

Alvaro: Maybe update the checklist.

Barry: I think the right answer is updating the checklist.

Adam: So the proposal there would be just to remove the things that are
automated?

Alvaro: We probably need to update the checklist either by leaving a list there
that's not automated, or by adding another question. I don't know what those
items might be. Why don't you and I, Adam, get an action item to go look at
this. We do whatever updates we're doing for yang right now, and whatever we
need to do in the future we can do.

Adam:  I agree we shouldn't block anything else for this. It sounds like a good
plan.

Alissa: There's a bit of a strange interaction with our style guide, because
some of the things are mentioned in the checklist but there's a lot of stuff in
the style guide that isn't mentioned in the checklist, that I think also needs
to be dealt with. All the outdated references, like the reference on IPR is not
to the current RFC, and that stuff in addition to the automated vs. not
automated.

Magnus: How up to date is the style guide now? It's been a while since I looked
at it.

Adam: There's a new version in progress that Heather expects to have pushed out
before she steps down.

Suresh: I think the checklist needs to be updated because even though we have
an automated tool people are going to ask why we have it that way, so even
though it's painful I think we need to update the checklist.

Alissa: I think then the question is whether there are any objections to us
adopting the changes for yang in the google doc, both for this one and we'll
import the same changes to the individual AD sponsored writeup. Does anyone
object to adopting these changes?

Suresh: No specific objection, but I have a question for Ignas. One of the
things I thought could be useful is to put in something about NMDA. Is that
something you would support?

Ignas: NMDA support is assumed that all current modules are compliant, and if
not, it has to have an exception. I'm not certain that explicitly stating this
is really needed.

Suresh: Because the validator doesn't check for it.

Ignas: That's correct, because it's not something you can easily check. It's
about the structure of the model, not the syntax. This is what the yang doctors
do. If you think this is really needed, it's fine, it wouldn't hurt. It would
just be a little bit of a redundancy. From the modeling perspective, NMDA is a
hard requirement.

Suresh: I wouldn't mind adding something in there. I'll just add in a sentence
or so.

Ignas: That's fine with me, yes.

Mirja: The automatic yang check where we see this symbol in the datatracker?

Suresh: It doesn't check for NMDA.

Ignas: Because this is a syntax, not a modeling paradigm.

Alissa: So Suresh, you will add something and then we'll get it pushed out to
the website and a note to the WG chairs. Do people think it needs to only go to
the WG chairs list or should this be noted for the whole community? There are
shepherds who aren't WG chairs.

Warren: It sort of feels like it should be noted for the whole community.

6.3 Timers at IETF 106 plenary (Alissa Cooper)

Alissa: We need to come to some conclusion on which parts of the plenary we
would like to use timers for, assuming we will have timing infrastructure and
people to run the timers, which we will have. There have been different ideas
about this; show the timers for most of the slots and just don’t mind if people
run over, just do it for the open mic,  or open mic plus presenters from the
community. We need to settle on what we’re going to do so the secretariat can
prepare and so I can prepare the speakers with what the expectation is.

Mirja: I thought there was agreement already we wanted to have timers for the
IESG open mic.

Alissa: 2 minutes per question and 2 minutes per answer, is that right?

Mirja: That’s what I would go for.

Eric: We may want 2 minutes for the question and 3 for the reply. Typically,
questions are shorter. But I’m fine with 2 and 2.

Mirja: It’s a mix, you don’t have to take the whole 2 minutes to ask a question.

Alissa: Shall we go with that for this go around, see how it works, and we can
debrief afterward?

Mirja: I’d still be in favor of doing it for basically everything, but if we
exclude half of it at the end it doesn’t make much sense for me.

Ted: So, are we doing IAB first or IESG first this time?

Alissa: We can do it however we want.

Ted: Let’s do IAB first this time. I think it will be confusing if you
introduce the timers and then immediately dispense with them. I think it will
make a little bit more sense to introduce them at the end.

Barry: I agree with that.

Mirja: So we have an agenda for the plenary up there that says who’s speaking
when about what. Can we put times there as well? That would just mean asking
each speaker how long they need and putting the number there.

Ted: We could do that for the Postel award or future host speakers.

Alissa: I’d rather just encourage people to be brief, and not get them to
commit to a set time.

Suresh: The issue is not that; the issue is mainly the open mic. I’m supportive
of Mirja’s timer but I did have a suggestion. Instead of a timer down, maybe
you should have a timer up, so they can see the time but not really count down.
And we’ll tell them later we want to do a countdown timer.

Mirja: It does make sense that people see how long they’re talking, but it
would need to flash or blink after two minutes.

Suresh: I get it. I’m really supportive. I’m just saying we just want to time
people for the experiment and enforce it at the next meeting. So people at
least understand they’re being timed and people get to see how long they take.

Mirja: I just think if it’s running down to 0 it’s a stronger signal.

Alissa: I think either way if we want people to stop talking there’s going to
have to be someone from the stage who intervenes. I don’t think people are
going to stop talking when it hits 0 or 2. That’s how I’ve seen it, anyway, in
the past at other meetings. We have to expect that if we’re telling people to
keep it to 2 minutes, and we can all see the timer, we’re going to have to
politely ask them to finish their thought.

Mirja: I don’t think we want to do it but I also just want to say there’s also
a harder boundary where when the timer runs down we ask everyone to start
clapping so people get actively interrupted. I’m not saying we should do that,
it’s just another way to do it. I’m find just going with this part for now and
seeing what we get.

Alissa: I think we have what we need then.

6.4 [IANA #1155192] Designated experts for RFC 8620 (IANA)

Amy: This is a new management item for Alexey.

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

Alvaro: One of my WG chairs passed away last week. I sent an email to the IESG
and to the WG. He was the only chair of that WG, Stan Ratliff from manet. We
are making arrangements to do some kind of remembrance tribute in Singapore. If
I can, I'd like to take a couple of minutes at the plenary to speak about him
as well.

Alissa: Thanks. we have a section that's going to be in memoriam; there are a
couple of other people who have passed away since the last IETF meeting we'll
be recognizing, so. I'll add him in there and you'll get mail from me about
logistics. I'm sorry to hear it.

Magnus: I have something too. We talked a bit about going forward to expanding
quic. That discussion is opening up now. We plan to have part of the TSVAREA
session to talk about it, and quic will also. We still need to talk to the ART
ADs a bit because you're most affected by some of the usage. We should schedule
a meeting for that.

Mirja: I was supposed to send an email; in the quic github wiki, there's a page
called related activity which lists all the things we know about, where we ask
people to list theiir stuff. That might be good information for you as well.

Eric: You may be happy to know that Transport has now two AD nominees. Martin
Duke is the second one.

Alissa: One last entreaty to please put items onto the wiki for discussion in
Singapore. If you have things that are needing discussion, I'll start putting
agendas together next week.

Ben: FYI -  there had been a few of us talking about proposals for internal
protocols between the load balancer and the back end servers to securely
communicate some metadata or other information about the request. It sounds
like there's going to be a slot at secdispatch about at least one use case for
that and see if there's potential for a proposal that would work for mutliple
use cases. If you have people interested, let them know to show up at
secdispatch.

Mirja: We already exchanged some eamils that this might be related to some
other work with respect to quic.

Ben: There's potentially a lot of work in this general space and it's not clear
to me yet how it would interplay with each other or how related they actually
are.