Narrative Minutes interim-2020-iesg-13 2020-06-11 14:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2020-iesg-13-202006111400-00

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2020-06-11 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
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
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
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / IAB Chair

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
Matthew Miller
Mike Jones

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: Does anyone want to add anything new to today's agenda? Any other changes?
[None.]

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Does anyone have an objection to the minutes of the May 21 teleconference being
approved? Hearing none. Does anyone have an objection to the narrative minutes
from May 21 being approved? Hearing none either. And for housekeeping, with the
move from IETF 107 Vancouver to virtual we missed approving the BoF
coordination call minutes. Any objection to approving those? Hearing none;
those will be posted as well.

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 is not on the call; this item will remain in progress.

     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.

Wes: We've made progress. We came up with proposed text I'll send to the IESG
list shortly and we need feedback.

     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: This is still in progress, slowly.

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

Warren: I guess we can mark this done. It's posted and it looks like it's
working. I have a note on my calendar to look at it again in five or six months
and see if it is still working. Greg will discuss it during the newcomers
things so people can look at it and provide feedback.

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

Alvaro: I think I'm going to drop this one. There wasn't a lot of excitement
and I don't seem to be getting to it anytime soon.

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

Warren: Let's keep this 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.

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

Murray: I've got feedback from Sandy to fold in, Michelle sent some more. Ben
has provided a pull request. There's progress being made.

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

Eric V: I still need to contact Suresh on this one, so mark it 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).

Amy: This is on the agenda as a management 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.

Warren: I think we can mark this done.

     o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft text on guidance regarding
       the number of document authors on documents.

Alvaro: In progress.

     o Alvaro Retana, Rob Wilton, and Alissa Cooper to draft text on the
       framework for a long-term future plan for the IETF.

Alvaro: I thought Martin V was on this one too.

Martin V: I was about to say that too. I should be on that list of names.

     o Roman Danyliw to draft text for a request to the Tools Team to move
       BoF requests from the BoF Wiki to the Datatracker.

Roman is not on the call; this item will remain in progress.

     o Barry Leiba to draft a proposal regarding moving the deadline for
       BoF Proposals for IETF 109 earlier (more than two weeks before the
       BoF Coordination Call).

Barry: Let's leave that on. We discussed it but I need to write something up.

     o Alvaro Retana, Warren Kumari, and Barry Leiba to draft clarifying
       text on Errata Best Practices.

Alvaro: In progress.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-isis-te-app-14  - IETF stream
   IS-IS TE Attributes per application (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

Amy: I have a number of Discusses for this document; do any of these need to be
discussed today?

Alvaro: No, I don't think so. They should be easy enough. The main author in
California is probably just waking up to see this. Revised ID Needed, thanks.

 o draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14  - IETF stream
   OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute Reuse (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Alvaro Retana

Amy: I have a couple of Discusses for this document; do any of these need to be
discussed today?

Alvaro: No, I don't think so either. In this case the author has already been
talking to Deborah and Rob so I think we'll be okay. We will need a Revised ID
here too.

 o draft-ietf-emu-eap-session-id-04  - IETF stream
   EAP Session-Id Derivation for EAP-SIM, EAP-AKA, and PEAP (Proposed
   Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have a Discuss in the tracker but Roman is not on the call today; Ben,
since it's your Discuss and you're co-AD, do you have a feeling if this is
going to be a revised ID?

Ben: Yeah, I think it's just going to be Revised ID; it should be pretty simple.

 o draft-ietf-cose-webauthn-algorithms-07  - IETF stream
   COSE and JOSE Registrations for WebAuthn Algorithms (Proposed
   Standard)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

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

Murray: I'm just seeing it for the first time but I don't think we need to talk
about it here. Let's see what the authors say.

Ben: The only question I have is the last point about the charter saying this
should maybe be an Informational document and if that prevents us from
publishing it as Proposed Standard.

Barry: I think charters shouldn't be written that specifically about the status
of documents unless there's a really good reason to. The right thing here I
think is to do the right thing. If they're looking for a registration that
needs standards action we need to let it be standards track.

Ben: I think the subtlety here is that there are just different ranges of code
points. To get the shorter code point needed a standards action.

Barry: And it has been processed by the WG and the Last Call process as
Standards track so I don't think there's any issue. I wouldn't hold them to the
letter of the charter.

Murray: Maybe it's not this doc but the other one, which also has a Discuss on
it, but it has downref problems if we leave it at standards track. I think that
means we have to do Last Call on it again?

Barry: You mean if we leave it as Informational.

Ben: The 8152bis-algs is currently listed as Informational and the 8152-struct
has a normative reference to the algs.

Barry: But the Last Call process should have automatically called that out in
the Last Call message.

Murray: I looked in the ballot and it wasn't there. Maybe I'm looking in the
wrong place.

Warren: If it hasn't noted it, we have often gone through and said 'it seems
like the right thing to do, let's just make a note and add it to the downref
registry.'

Barry: There is now an RFC that I was author on that allows us to do the right
thing on that explicitly. We wouldn't need to do a Last Call. I don't think we
need to add it to the downref registry because I don't think we're going to
have any other normative references to that document.

Alvaro: What I thought was weird with that document is that I didn't see
discussion in the WG if it was tagged as standard. Because the struct is now an
internet standard, it just seemed weird to split one standard track document
into an internet standard and an informational one. My concern is not about the
downref, mostly about was it even discussed anywhere.

Barry: I think it's really a preference of Jim Schaad's, rather than an
explicit WG decision.

Alvaro: That's why I thought it was weird, because when they pushed the
publication request button it called it an internet standard, but then Jim sent
that email that he was reminded that he really wanted this to be informational
even though all the headers say standards all the way. Just kind of weird.

Barry: Jim's preference is that for things like the algorithms that really
aren't something you're going to progress on the standards track, that should
be informational. I kind of agree. I personally would have split Proposed
Standard into two Internet Standards rather than one being informational. We
can push back and do another Last Call for this being internet standard, if we
think that's the right thing. I don't think it's worth doing.

Ben: I'm perfectly happy to keep the algs document as Informational and not go
through the effort of doing another IETF Last Call but I don't really have a
strong preference either way.

Barry: Does anyone strongly think that we should make algs Internet Standard
rather than Informational?

Ben: Actually we might have trouble making algs go to Internet Standard
directly because I think it adds the capabilities.

Barry: Right. So we have a downref either way. I think the right thing to do is
to leave it alone and progress them as they are.

Murray: For this document we'll wait for the authors to come back and we can
move on to the other documents.

Amy: So this will stay as Proposed Standard and it's going into the substate
Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-10  - IETF stream
   CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process
   (Internet Standard)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Barry: There has been good discussion on both of the 8152bis documents,
including the one coming up later. We don't need to discuss them here and they
should both go into Revised ID Needed. This one needs at least one more ballot
so those of you who have no records, please ballot this one.

Magnus: I didn't manage to get to it.

Barry: That's fine. It's not going anywhere anytime real soon, so get to it
over the next week if you can, please.

Michelle: We are waiting on a couple IANA-related fixes as well.

Barry: I saw that and I will not let it go until those are made.

Michelle: Thank you.

Amy: Okay, so into the substate Revised ID Needed.

 o draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-07  - IETF stream
   Link-Layer Addresses Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6 (Proposed
   Standard)
   Note: For information, this MAC-assign document is linked to
   draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-08 (currently in IETF Last call).
   Probably better to read them in a row: first MAC assign then SLAP.
   Token: Eric Vyncke

Amy: I have a couple of Discusses in the tracker. Do we need to discuss those
today?

Eric V: I don't think so but I'm open for discussion obviously. Two of the
authors are the DCH WG chairs and Bernie is quite reactive. Ben, I think he has
addressed most of your Discuss points. We still need to get something fixed for
Rob, but Rob it's up to you if you want to discuss now.

Rob: I think I'm fine.

Eric V: So Revised ID Needed for sure.

 o draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-09  - IETF stream
   SLAP quadrant selection options for DHCPv6 (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Eric Vyncke

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

Eric V: Maybe. One of the things about the review by IEEE, I think it has been
done but let's wait for confirmation by Carlos. By the way, Carlos is a
professor at the university so he's currently busy with other issues. One
point, Rob, is that you don't like to refuse a QUAD request if it cannot be
satisfied, and you make it parallel with requesting the amount of addresses,
like a hint. But getting a smaller chunk of the MAC address is okay. But when
you request a quadrant and you get another one, I think it's a vast change. I
would like to remove this part of your Discuss because it's so much of a change
to the protocol that we would go back to the WG on this.

Rob: I'm not an expert in DHCP, but it seemed like in DHCP you had an option to
accept or deny a request, effectively. It felt, or maybe I misunderstood the
protocol, but if it offered you something you were not willing to accept you
could choose not to accept it. It feels like there's more complexity here than
is required.

Eric V: Let's go back and look at it.

Rob: Or we chat offline and maybe you can explain some things.

Eric V: Okay. Anyway we'll go for a Revised ID and we'll talk later.

 o draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07  - IETF stream
   Captive-Portal Identification in DHCP / RA (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Barry Leiba

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

Barry: No; all three capport documents are in the same situation. They're all
awaiting responses from the authors and they should all go into Revised ID
Needed.

 o draft-ietf-capport-api-07  - IETF stream
   Captive Portal API (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Amy: So this one will also go into Revised ID Needed?

Barry: Yes.

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

 o draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-09  - IETF stream
   CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms
   (Informational)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Amy: Sounds like this is the Revised ID Needed substate?

Barry: That's right.

Michelle: We are still waiting for the second expert to get back to us, because
Jim is an expert but he's also an author.

Barry: Thanks.

 o draft-ietf-cose-hash-algs-04  - IETF stream
   CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Hash Algorithms
   (Informational)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

Amy: This also has a Discuss. Is this like all the other cose documents in
Revised ID Needed?

Murray: Yes.

 o draft-ietf-capport-architecture-08  - IETF stream
   CAPPORT Architecture (Informational)
   Token: Barry Leiba

Amy: Barry said Revised ID Needed here.

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

 o Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption (masque)

Martin D: There are a couple of comments that have been addressed in the latest
version.

Amy: I currently have no blocking comments for version 00-02, so unless there's
an objection now it looks like the masque WG is ready for chartering.

Magnus: Isn't it external review?

Martin D: We just did external review. So Amy, do I press a button or do you
press a button?

Amy: We will do it. We'll send an announcement probably 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

Alvaro: Last week the IAB had a retreat just like we did. They spaced it out in
different ways. They'd done a SWOT/PEST so there were some breakouts. I'm sure
they'll send out a summary of the whole thing. The thing I want to highlight is
that there is some overlap in the things the IAB are discussing and things we
have been discussing, for example around IETF effectiveness and community
interaction. Not a bad thing, just pointing that out so we keep an eye out and
work together with the IAB on anything necessary in the future.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1170960] Management Item: Acceptance of media type registration from
standards organization ASTM International (IANA)

Amy: Any objection to adding ASTM International to the list of organizations
that have registered media types?

Barry: I looked into them and they look like they are an appropriate
organization to add.

Amy: I'm hearing no objection, so they are approved and we will send official
note to IANA.

6.2 [IANA #1170306] renewing early allocations for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir (IANA)

Amy: Any objection to renewing the early allocation for this document?

Martin V: The draft is in my queue and it needs a Revised ID. It's been in that
state for quite some time and the authors have promised to do the update, so I
think it's necessary to renew.

Amy: I'm not hearing any objections to approving the renewal of the early
allocation, so we will send that note to IANA.

6.3 [IANA #1163481] Designated Experts for the IPv6 Low Power Personal Area
Network Parameters registries

Amy: We are updating the designated experts for a number of these registries.
Any objection to these replacements? Hearing none, so these are approved and we
will get that note sent to IANA.

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

Eric V: I just sent email to the IESG about a change of chairs for DHC WG.
Tomek needs to leave because he's overloaded and Tim Winters is replacing him.
Bernie Volz stays as co-chair.

Ben: We have a couple of WGs in the Security area that we're going to try to
get through chartering before 108; TXAUTH has settled on a different name and
I've got PRIVACY-PASS on my plate. I think I mentioned Open PGP last time as
well. We've got a few things in the pipeline.

Amy: Are privacy-pass and what was txauth going to want to meet at 108? Will
they need placeholders for the Bof wiki?

Ben: I had been planning to put placeholders on the Bof wiki.

Alissa: Are people aware of any other Bofs? The deadline is tomorrow and
there's one in the wiki.

Amy: There are two; one went in this morning. Plus the two placeholders for
Security Ben just talked about.

Magnus: Transport has one.

Amy: Reminders: The Bof Coordination call is on Monday. There are also two
Doodles out to choose times for the pre- and post-108 IESG and IAB joint
meetings. I have responses from about half of you and they're open through
tomorrow.