Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2020-iesg-07 2020-03-12 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2020-03-12 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2020-iesg-07 2020-03-12 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2020-03-12 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
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Alissa Cooper (Cisco) / IETF Chair, General Area
Michelle Cotton (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Martin Duke / F5 Networks Inc / incoming Transport Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Wes Hardaker (USC/ISI) / IAB Liaison
Ted Hardie (Google) / IAB Chair
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Erik Kline / Loon LLC / incoming Internet Area
Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom) / Internet Area
Murray Kucherawy / Facebook / incoming Applications and Real-Time 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
Alice Russo (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Robert Wilton / Cisco Systems / incoming Operations and Management Area

Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix) /  Operations and Management Area
Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director

Karen O'Donoghue
Francesca Palombini
Colin Perkins
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: We've moved the action items to the end of the call and if we don't get to
them today, we'll take them up next week.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: If you haven't had a chance to review the minutes, we can put this off
until next week.

Ben: Definitely didn't look at those yet.

Amy: Okay, let's dispense with the approval of the minutes this time and we'll
take it up after you've had time to see them.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07  - IETF stream
   ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to processing limits
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Suresh Krishnan

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

Suresh: No, the actions are clear. This is going to require a revised ID.

Amy: Is this something you think is going to happen quick enough that if we put
this document back on the next telechat it could be cleared?

Suresh: I think so. I think it's pretty straightforward; Ben's comments are a
little bit longer to address but I'll make sure they're done. I really want to
clear this off my plate before I go, so put it on the next telechat if it's

Amy: Great; we'll add that to next week.

 o draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-13  - IETF stream
   LPWAN Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) for CoAP (Proposed
   Token: Suresh Krishnan

Amy: There are quite a number of Discusses; do we need to discuss those today?

Suresh: No, it's already ongoing. We had an interim meeting specifically to
discuss these changes specifically from the SecDIR review. Ben's Discuss was
pretty recent and I'll make sure it gets added. The authors are pretty
responsive so I do expect this to be resolved by next week. Revised ID as well.

Amy: Do you want it as a returning item next week?

Suresh: Yes please, thank you.

Ben: Suresh, I have no idea what the state is on the TSV-Art reviewer's
comments, which were about the other document. Do you happen to know?

Suresh: I have to work with them on it because of the UDP stuff. Magnus has
flagged it and I'll make sure that gets addressed too. It's pretty much going
to say this is not going to be compatible, like what Mirja suggested, but I'm
trying to see if we can do something more useful than that. It will probably
take longer than next week's telechat to address it. I know it's fundamentally
incompatible so I need to make sure I'm careful there.

Mirja: Ben might not know there was discussion between the Transport ADs and
INT ADs about it.

Ben: Glad to hear it. I felt a little weird holding that point on my ballot.

Suresh: I'll close the loop on that once I have a better answer.

Ben: Sure, thanks.

 o draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-12  - IETF stream
   6TiSCH Minimal Scheduling Function (MSF) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Suresh Krishnan

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

Suresh: I want to provide some info. I found a link on Semantic Scholar for the
cited paper and I'm not sure if that's the canonical URL. I'll put that URL in
but I want the authors to come back and say that's what they want to use. I
posted the link on the chat if you want to take a look. I do want to resolve
that with the authors. This is a Revised ID as well but I think it's

Amy: Would you like this returning next week?

Suresh: Yes, thanks.

 o draft-ietf-git-using-github-05 (Has RFC Editor Note)  - IETF stream
   Working Group GitHub Usage Guidance (Best Current Practice)
   Token: Alissa Cooper

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

Alissa: Yes. As I said in email, me personally I'm ambivalent about this. It's
true the BCP25 thing was just suggested by the GenART reviewer, which is why I
put the note in. I have a strong feeling but nobody else has commented aside
from Brian Carpenter.

Alvaro: I have a feeling it shouldn't be part of BCP25. I think Brian mostly
asked should it be. If we just take it off I'm going to be very happy.

Alissa: Okay. Well, I sent my response to you and CCed the list, so let me just
give it another day and see if anyone else on the list chimes in. If not, I'll
take out the note.

Alvaro: That works, thank you.

Amy: So this sounds like it's an AD Followup?

Barry: Does that mean that it will be a BCP but it's own BCP rather than part
of BCP25?

Alissa: That's a good question. We talked about that with Warren's ballot and
then he changed ballot positions. I think the WG prefers to leave it as BCP and
that's what the approved milestone said it was going to be. Unless anyone else
has a real problem with it being a BCP, it will be easier to just leave it. It
will get its own BCP number.

Barry: I'm happy with that. My view is that it's not saying that this is the
best way for WGs to work. It's saying that if you use Github, this is the best
way to do it so it melds with IETF process. So I'm good with that approach.

Alvaro: I'm fine with that too.

Alissa: Okay. So I think it's actually Revised ID Needed because there are a
lot of other comments that are getting addressed.

Mirja: I'm replying to Martin's answers right now, just so you know.

Amy: This will go into IESG Evaluation, Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20  - IETF stream
   ALTO Incremental Updates Using Server-Sent Events (SSE) (Proposed
   Token: Mirja Kuehlewind

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now
it looks like this is approved. Hearing none, it looks like this is approved. I
don't see notes; are any needed, or is this ready to go?

Mirja: No, this is Revised ID Needed.

Amy: Okay, this will go into Approved, Announcement to be Sent, Revised ID

2.1.2 Returning items


2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items

 o draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa-16  - IETF stream
   Special Use Domain Name '' (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Warren Kumari

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

Warren: Yes please, briefly. I believe what was intended with the "iterative
resolvers...must be configured" was that implementation must comply with this.
Implementation must trigger them to do this by default. I think that should be
a relatively easy change for the author to make.

Ben: That would work. The "must be configured" just left me hanging as to who
is supposed to do it and is it actually a realizable requirement.

Warren: Thank you very much.

Roman: Warren, if you could also make sure that top level comment I made is
looked into? I really feel like we need some cautionary text about overlying
the perceived perception of the user in a hard-coded [unintelligible].

Warren: Sure. I will have a look and double check what that said.

Amy: So will those changes require a Revised ID?

Warren: Yes.

Amy: So this will stay in IESG Evaluation with Revised ID Needed.

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-git-github-wg-configuration-06  - IETF stream
   Working Group GitHub Administration (Informational)
   Token: Barry Leiba

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

Barry: I think we do. The issue is on whether this document should be published
at all or just live as a draft.

Alissa: I didn't think that was really Mirja's point. It's the ICANN meeting
this week so Paul and I are both pretty busy; he did what he could in between
meetings but it's going to take us more time to go back through and try to hit
the points Mirja wants.

Mirja: What's the status of the datatracker implementation? Does it make sense
to wait on publication of this document until those things are implemented and
then adopted accordingly?

Alissa: My understanding is that they are all in progress in some form. The
backup stuff they're going to do an RFP for, but some of the other things they
can just do themselves. I've been staying in touch with Robert on where these
things land in their queue. They're all in different states.

Mirja: I have to say I find it a little bit weird that this is so tightly
coupled to the datatracker, which is just a tool we happen to use, rather than
focusing on what the actual process is.

Alissa: It's definitely a mix.

Mirja: More time for more iterative change is needed.

Barry: Okay, let's put this in AD Followup then.

 o draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis-10  - IETF stream
   Running a Root Server Local to a Resolver (Informational)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection it
looks like this is approved.

Barry: Warren, do you want to do an update or is it all set?

Warren: I don't think it needs an update. Let's put it in Point Raised and I'll
double check. And yes Eric, that was considered, there were a bunch of reasons
it wasn't done, and we should chat about it offline.

Eric: Okay, thank you.

 o draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07  - IETF stream
   Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid
   performance monitoring (Experimental)
   Token: Mirja Kuehlewind

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

Ben: The authors just replied 20 minutes ago; it should be fine.

Amy: Does that mean it's getting a Revised ID?

Ben: Yes.

Amy: Mirja, do you want to put this back on for next week to see if you can
clear that Discuss?

Mirja: I don't think we need to; it's a pretty small Discuss.

Amy: Okay, we'll put it in Revised ID Needed and wait for your all-clear.

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


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 IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan)

Amy: I have no blocks for this charter. I was just going to ask if this
requires external review?

Suresh: I asked and I don't think anyone wanted external review. I just wanted
to check on that, if it's okay to just get it done. It's just minor changes.
But I do want to make small changes like Eric wanted one small language change.
Adam wanted some milestones added and I'm working on some timelines for it so
I'll make sure that gets added too. But the intent is not to go for external
review and just get it done.

Amy: So I'm hearing this does not need external review but it's pending edits
before we send out the announcement.

Suresh: Yes please, thank you.

 o TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm)

Amy: I have no blocks for this. This is pending the completion of internal
review, so that ends on Monday which means Monday is the earliest we can send
this recharter announcement. Are there any edits to make or is this ready to go
when that happens?

Mirja: It's good to go.

4.2.2 Proposed for approval


5. IAB news we can use

Mirja: The IAB also discussed about the joint meeting and I think that was
confirmed for the slot after the IAB meeting next Wednesday.

Alissa: Yes. 22:30 UTC on March 18. I'll be updating the IESG wiki with all of
the calls but I haven't done it yet. You'll get invites and our calendar will
get updated as well.

Ted: We've also made an appointment for the RFC Editor Program. That's not
announced yet as we're waiting for all the candidates to be notified.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1161777] Management Item: Protocol Number for Transparent Inter
Process Communication (TIPC) (IANA)

Suresh: I'm just waiting to get a response back to Ben's question about the
128-bit value before I go further on this. Ben, I'm specifically concerned
about collision, so I want to make sure we have a system there before we go
ahead. Keep it open please, thank you.

Amy: Do you want us to add this again for next week?

Suresh: Yes please.

6.2 [IANA #1163249] renewing early allocations for
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution (IANA)

Alvaro: I think we should renew. This document has already passed WG LC. IDR
also requires implementation, so the implementations are available. We should
approve this.

Amy: Any objection to approving the extension to the allocation? Hearing no
objection, so this is approved and we will send note to IANA.

6.3 [IANA #1164641] Designated experts for RFC 7401 (IANA)

This action item has been assigned to Eric V.

6.4 Approval of an additional Media Type expert (Alexey Melnikov)

Amy: Is there any objection to approving the appointment of Alexey as another
expert for the media types registry?

Ben: It might have looked better if a different AD had sponsored the management
item but I doubt there are actual objections.

Murray: I could do it, I guess.

Alexey: I have to recuse myself from the decision.

Amy: I'm hearing no objection to the actual appointment, so we'll send an
official note to IANA.

6.5 [IANA #1164865] Designated experts for RFC 8747 (IANA)

This action item has been assigned to Ben.

6.6 Virtual Meeting Schedule (Alissa Cooper)

The IESG discussed the condensed virtual meeting schedule for IETF 107.

6.7 Current Last Call Extensions (Secretariat)

Amy: I've had four people say we should continue making that one week extension
of Last Calls, so unless there's an objection we're just going to continue on
as we normally would and on March 23 we'll stop adding a week to Last Calls.
Okay, we'll do that.

6.8 Confirmation of IESG Selection to IETF Trust (Suresh Krishnan)

Suresh: I'll send the announcement after this is done. I wanted to minute it
here. I have it ready to go.

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