Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2020-iesg-11 2020-05-07 14:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2020-iesg-11-202005071400-00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2020-05-07 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2020-iesg-11 2020-05-07 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

narrative-minutes-interim-2020-iesg-11-202005071400-00
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2020-05-07 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
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 / Transport Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Wes Hardaker (USC/ISI) / IAB Liaison
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Erik Kline / Loon LLC / Internet Area
Murray Kucherawy / Facebook / Applications and Real-Time Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / IAB Chair
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Barry Leiba (Futurewei Technologies) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Robert Wilton / Cisco Systems / Operations and Management Area

REGRETS
---------------------------------
Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
Brenda Lyons
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: Does anyone have anything to add to today's agenda?

Warren: Maybe. If people don't object I'd like to talk about keywords again in
AOB.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes of the April 24
teleconference being approved? Hearing none. Does anyone have an objection to
the narrative minutes of the April 24 teleconference being approved? Hearing
none. Those are both approved.

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.

Roman: That's in progress. I made it complicated by doing some visio so that's
the delay for sending it out. I'll have it early next week.

     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: We did do something on this, didn't we?

Martin V: We never implemented it. As we said last time, we have a solution, I
think it's about now presenting it to all of us and possibly implement it in
the tool chain.

Amy: Is this something you want to present at an informal telechat, or that you
might want to take to the retreat?

Martin V: I think informal is enough.

Wes: I don't think it's complex enough we need a retreat spot for it.

Amy: Okay, so someone should add it to the agenda for an upcoming informal.

     o Alvaro Retana and Barry Leiba, with Warren Kumari, Alexey Melnikov,
       Martin Vigoureux, and Roman Danyliw 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: area directors,
       authors, or chairs.

Barry: Active discussion in progress.

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

Warren: In progress.

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

Alvaro: In progress.

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

Warren: In progress.

     o Eric Vyncke to write up draft text on Special Interest
       Groups and send to the IESG for comment.

Eric V: Still in progress, and I will put this topic on the informal next week.
Those special interest groups are mostly informal and for meeting people face
to face, so for virtual meetings it's challenging and I'd like to get some more
feedback and discussion there. It's in progress, basically.

     o Alvaro Retana, Benjamin Kaduk, and Murray Kucherawy to look at
       updating the I-D Checklist.

Murray: The I-D checklist part is finished; we're now looking at whether we
want to merge the guidelines document into it, because they cover almost the
same material. Sandy from the RFC Editor sent us things they'd like to see in
there and we're working on that as well.

     o Eric Vyncke (with Suresh Krishnan) to write a draft of an IoT
       Systems charter.

Eric V: In progress.

     o Erik Kline to find designated experts for the IPv6 Low Power
       Personal Area Network Parameters registries [IANA #1163481].
       (Deadline: June 1, 2020).

Erik K: In progress.

     o Warren Kumari to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-anima-
       bootstrapping-keyinfra [IANA #1169514].

Amy: This is a new item.

     o All ADs (and Colin for the IRTF) to go through the keywords
       Google Sheet and curate the list of keywords per working group
       in their area.

Amy: I saw a lot of empty slots. I guess we'll talk about this in AOB.

     o Alissa Cooper to edit the draft text for the "manycouches BoF"
       and send to the manycouches email list for feedback.

Alissa: I haven't sent it to the list yet but I think I'm going to get someone
else to send it. You can mark this item as done.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-17  - IETF stream
   Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol -
   Link State (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

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

Ben: Not an objection, but Martin and I were similarly confused by this
definition of the Node MSD and I don't know how hard we should work on
resolving that in the email threads.

Alvaro: All we're doing here in this draft is carrying stuff that was defined
somewhere else. In other words, that definition is already in the IGPs. Even if
we change it here it has no impact. If we need to change something we have to
go back and change IS-IS.

Ben: Or we could just say we're not going to have an explicit definition in
this document, we'll just define it by reference to the previous definition.

Alvaro: Yes. We can do that as well. In any case, I think we need a Revised ID
here; there are a couple of extra things that we shouldn't be defining here
anyway, which is related to what you're talking about in Section 5. I'll talk
to the authors about that and coordinate.

Ben: Thanks.

Amy: So this is Approved, Announcement to be Sent, Revised ID Needed and you
can let us know when that's all worked out.

 o draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08  - IETF stream
   Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures (Proposed
   Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

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

Alvaro: No, I don't think so. John, the author, has been engaged. We're going
to add some text about all the deprecated stuff and the survey the WG made. 
The other issue which has to do with IANA, we're going to take out the extra
sentence and add an extra column to the table. I think we should be okay. We're
going to need a Revised ID on this one.

Amy: Okay, this will stay in IESG Evaluation, Revised ID Needed.

2.1.2 Returning items

 NONE

2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items

 o draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-02  - IETF stream
   Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (Best Current
   Practice)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

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

Barry: We do need to discuss it. Ben, have you had any rethinking with the
conversation that's happened in the last day?

Ben: Yes, my tentative conclusion is that my initial understanding was
incorrect. I do think it's worth talking a little bit about what we actually
believe the recall process is, given that Magnus and I were coming up with
different interpretations of it. I don't have the historical experience of when
it was started the one previous time, and if people had a plan of what they
were doing then.

Barry: Broader, I think fixing the recall process for this situation is beyond
the scope of this document. We've made a concession to that by dealing with the
things that are tied to the nomcom eligibility that happen before we have
another IETF meeting.

Ben: My question is --

Barry: We do not have a plan and we do not have community consensus, and that's
out of scope for this document. The purpose of this document is to get a nomcom
seated.

Ben: Right. I don't understand if we fix the rules for having a nomcom seated,
and we fix the rules for getting a recall committee seated by proxy, but how
long could that [fixing of the rules] last? In terms of, if we ran the
procedures to create a recall committee, what's the nature of the dependency on
the nomcom rules?

Barry: At this point we need to defer that to if a recall petition happens. I
don't think we should be spending our effort dealing with that for this
document.

Ben: I agree we do not need to fix the issue in your document, but I'd like to
understand what the actual specifics of the issue are.

Barry: So let's have that discussion on the IESG list, but let's not have it in
a discuss ballot in this document.

Ben: I think part of why I put it in the discuss ballot is because if it is
resolved in one direction there's a trivial fix to this document that would put
us in a much better position.

Barry: Okay. So then we get to the other question: do you think it would be
worth having another four week Last Call and putting this on a telechat again
to do that?

Ben: No, that would be absurd.

Barry: It's not going to happen in this document because any change to this
document that will fix that would need another Last Call. And it's not just a
matter of convenience, we don't have community consensus on anything other than
what this document says.

Ben: That's not entirely clear to me; the question of the recall committee was
raised during community discussion. We have a fix we thought was going to
apply, but it may not have been a complete fix at the time.

Magnus: But as you said on this, Adrian's view was that this fixes it up until
IETF 108, which I agree it does. It fixes recall until that point but not any
further.

Ben: Right, and I guess my question, which I still don't understand, is whether
the trivial fix could be enough to fix it until IETF 110, or if it is
inherently only a fix until 108 because of the way the recall procedures would
work.

Barry: You're talking about interpreting if a recall petition were to come out
in August, after the scheduled time for IETF 108. Under normal conditions, the
last five meetings would be 108 and the four before it. I believe that's pretty
clear.

Ben: So there's a new call for volunteers and you're not reusing the list of
the nomcom volunteers from this year's nomcom.

Barry: Right.

Ben: That was not entirely clear to me, that's what I was trying to ask earlier.

Barry: I think we should proceed with this document and then have that
discussion as a separate thing.

Ben: I agree.

Barry: And that discussion should be on eligibility-discuss.

Ben: Thank you for answering the question that I was trying to get answered
earlier. I will go clear right now.

Barry: I think it's clear that we do not have community consensus once there's
a second meeting that isn't face to face.

Ben: I agree.

Barry: That issue really needs to be accelerated on the eligibility-discuss
list. So I will post now a revised ID which deals with the editorial issues and
Ben, you're going to clear your Discuss?

Ben: That's correct.

Barry: So by the end of this call we should be able to move ahead with this. It
will be Version 3.

Amy: After version 3 it's ready to go? Excellent.

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

 o draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-13  - IETF stream
   Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM) Framework (Informational)
   Token: Martin Vigoureux

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

Martin V: I don't think so. I'll say a couple of words. Murray, I think Carlos
is in contact with you and discussing your Discuss?

Murray: Yes.

Martin V: I think we're on a good track to resolve it. Let me know otherwise.

Murray: We're in good shape. I expect that will clear in a day or so.

Martin V: Alissa, thanks for raising this. I had some comments on my side
during AD Review on those aspects and I'm happy that you asked the question.
I'll let the authors reply on that; I don't think it's complicated to resolve
but I'm happy it comes up.

Alissa: Okay.

Martin V: As a side note, Roman and I agreed that the security consideration
needs a bit more work and he will work with the authors to make it more robust.
I am ashamed by the amount of nits you all found, all of you. That's where I
realize I am not a native English speaker, so thank you very much for the
review you all did. We can put it in Revised ID Needed.

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

 NONE

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

 NONE

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

Alvaro: There's no news we can use this week.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1167927] Renewing early allocations for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
(IANA)

Amy: It looks like this just needs an extension.

Alvaro: Yes, that's correct. So you all know, this draft is close to WG last
call. There are implementations, the WG is happy, etc.

Amy: Any objection to approving an extension? Hearing none, so we will send
note to IANA.

6.2 [IANA #1169514] Designated experts for
RFC-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-41 (IANA)

Amy: This was assigned to Warren at the top of the call.

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

Warren: I'd love to put another pitch in for keywords. I just put some links in
the chat which go to the webpages that show what it currently looks like. I
also had a discussion with Greg Wood about what he thought. We do currently
have a page on the IETF website www.ietf.org/topics, which has somewhat similar
things. Greg thought it might be a good place to put this there, along with
explanation of how this list was generated and that it's incomplete. I still
believe it's much more useful to have this than to not. If we have some
disclaimers saying it's a partial list, in case we have someone think we don't
work on a particular technology because it's not listed here. If it turns out
we don't keep this updated, we can unpublish it. So I still think we should put
it on the IETF website. I realize it's incomplete but it can be updated over
time. That's my proposal.

Rob W: Are you proposing to put it on this page, or link it from this page?

Warren: I propose that we give it to Greg. He'll probably add a section
underneath this and link to it. So not directly on this page but add a new
section with something along the lines of "we have a page with more keywords to
help you find new work or where you should bring work." Let Greg do his magic
of writing. I'm fine with it being on here as well but I think it's more to
leave it to Greg. At some point Greg still does have the project to implement
data analysis on the website, so when that happens he can collect that. He also
generally talks to newcomers and asks them how they found the IETF website, so
he could ask them about this as well. I also don't know if I mentioned this but
I shared the generated webpage within Google and a lot of folks found it
helpful, so I have anecdotal evidence that people will use it.

Rob: I'm still a fan of putting it up. I think it could be useful.

Warren: Thank you. Does anyone strongly object to it?

Alissa: I do, but I'm not going to stand in the way of it.

Mirja: Did at least one AD from every area look at it? I think there are still
some strange cases, like signaling is mentioned with only one WG.

Warren: I don't know if everyone's looked. People said they would. Yes there
are terms that only have a single WG, and I'm sure more people work on
signaling than just that one WG. But we can keep working on it and adding to it.

Mirja: I'm just wondering, because last time we said it would be good to do one
more pass and I'm wondering if that happened.

Warren: Looking at the spreadsheet, a bunch of edits were made after that but I
don't know if everybody did. I'm sure everybody didn't.

Mirja: Security maybe didn't, and also ART; there's keyword "web" with only one
WG and I would expect more.

Warren: I still think we can publish it and ART can update when they have a
chance. Hopefully WG people also discover it.

Rob: Alissa, can you remind me what your objection was?

Alissa: I don't need to take people's time. I don't really want to re-litigate
it. I just think publishing an incomplete list or where it hasn't been
coordinated across groups misleads people about what we do in the IETF. That's
all. And historically, we have a lot of pages on the site without a plan for
how they're going to be kept fresh and they get so far out of date they mislead
people. This page doesn't have such a plan, and I'd prefer it did have a plan.
But I don't care enough to stand in the way of it.

Magnus: How long until we have some website measurements?

Alissa: We already have them. It's already deployed.

Magnus: But we actually have to deploy them on the IETF site to figure out how
much this would get used. Could we time limit this page?

Warren: Sure. We could have it in six months or something. If it's not shown to
be useful, we can take it down. We could do the obvious thing of asking the
Secretariat nicely to please add it as an action item, or I could put it on my
calendar.

Magnus: I think it's important we do follow up on this, and the next steps,
because either we see that it's not used or it's used enough that we need to
take the next step and actually create those tools for keeping it updated.

Warren: I will add something to my to-do list in six months to follow up with
Greg to get stats on this so we can see if it is being used. And also at the
next in person meeting or newcomers feedback session Greg says he will add this
question to ask people.

Mirja: Does anybody know if we only see how many people visited that page or do
we also see which links they click to go to the next page?

Alissa: We get inbound referrer and link tracing.

Roman: It's my understanding we get the inbound and outbound.

Warren: I'll put something in for early September to collect stats and report
back.

Amy: A few reminders: for everyone to add retreat topics to the wiki, and for
everyone to fill out the Doodle for the time and date of the BoF coordination
call.

6.3 Executive Session: Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming