Narrative Minutes interim-2021-iesg-15 2021-07-01 14:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2021-iesg-15-202107011400-00

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2021-07-01 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll call

ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Ben Campbell (Independent Consultant) / IAB Liaison
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
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Erik Kline (Google) / Internet Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / IAB Chair
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Ericsson) / Transport Area
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Robert Wilton (Cisco Systems) / Operations and Management Area

REGRETS
---------------------------------
Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Lars Eggert (NetApp) / IETF Chair, General Area
Murray Kucherawy (Facebook) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
Stuart Card
Tim Costello
Brenda Lyons
Lee-Berkeley Shaw
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: Does anyone want to add anything new to today's agenda? Any other changes?

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes of the June 17 teleconference
being approved? Hearing no objections. Does anyone have an objection to the
narrative minutes from June 17 being approved? Hearing no objections; we will
get those posted.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

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

Ben: I think Murray has been holding the pen on this for the recent actions. I
don't have particularly current data.

     o Warren Kumari, Deborah Brungard, Stephen Farrell, and Jay Daley to
       investigate ways to recruit, recognize, and retain volunteers in the
       IETF.

Warren: Let's leave this in progress for now but I suspect eventually it'll be
dropped.

     o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft a note to wgchairs
       asking them to always confirm author/contributor status.

     o Alvaro Retana and Martin Vigoureux to draft text to include in the
       I-D submission tool warning about too many authors.

Alvaro and Martin V are not with us today so we'll keep both of these in
progress for them.

     o John Scudder and Martin Duke to review the document shepherd
       templates and propose changes to include updated questions and
       cross-area checks.

John: In progress.

     o Rob Wilton to draft text to expand the document shepherd write-up
       section on use of YANG Models.

Rob: In progress.

     o Eric Vyncke and Francesca Palombini to draft text for guidelines/
       best practices for directorate reviewers.

Francesca: We've started this; I have a draft wiki. It's going to need
everybody else at some point to draft their own page with specific guidelines
for each directorate, and we have a meeting scheduled with the GEN-ART
secretary to add some more pages and give us a how-to of the review tool for
the secretary. So in progress.

     o The IESG to report on the RFC 8989 experiment after the 2021 NomCom
       is seated (likely July 2021).

Amy: The 2021 NomCom is not seated yet so we'll keep this as in progress.

     o Murray Kucherawy to update BCP 97 to provide guidance about handling
       normative references to non-SDO documents.

     o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9036
       [IANA #1199105]

Amy: We'll keep these in progress for Murray who's not with us today.

     o Robert Wilton, Alvaro Retana, and Warren Kumari to report back to
       the IESG on the impact of COVID-19 to the IETF in June 2021.

Amy: We've done that, however it looks like you're going to be looking again at
some of the numbers just before IETF 111 so I'm just going to edit this text
for July and we'll update the numbers for you after the I-D submission closes
for 111.

Warren: This is actually in progress and we've been making great progress,
although most of that progress is thanks to Amy.

     o Lars Eggert to update BCP 45.

Amy: Lars isn't with us today so we'll just keep this in progress.

2. Protocol actions

2.1 WG submissions

2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-6man-grand-05  - IETF stream
   Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries on
   First-Hop Routers (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Erik Kline

Amy: I have no Discusses for this document, so unless there's an objection now,
it looks like this one is approved.

Erik K: Jen is taking several comments and producing some new versions so there
will be a revised ID at some point.

Amy: Okay, this will go into Approved, Announcement to be Sent, Revised ID
Needed and you can let us know when that's ready to go.

 o draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-15  - IETF stream
   A YANG Data Model for NTP (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Erik Kline

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

Erik K: The author is not available to respond to comments this week; he sent
some emails out. If people want to discuss, we can discuss, or we can wait for
the author to come back and start to handle feedback. Whatever people feel
like. None of this looks terribly contentious, it just needs to get ironed out
on email I suspect.

Amy: It doesn't sound like anyone needs to discuss their Discuss, so it looks
like we're good waiting for the author. Will this require a Revised ID?

Erik K: Definitely, yes.

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

 o draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-08  - IETF stream
   BPSec Default Security Contexts (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Zaheduzzaman Sarker

Amy: I have a number of Discusses. Some of those folks are not here to discuss
their Discusses; do we need to discuss any of those today?

Zahed: Maybe. I think the authors have replied to three of the discusses. I've
also seen emails that Martin and others are happy with the resolutions they
had. The only thing I perhaps would like to discuss is to ask Ben, you have
some suggestions that will request some changes in how things are packaged
together and I was just wondering if you have a hunch if these need to be
reevaluated and discussed in the WG or what's your thinking there? My take is
the whole protocol is still there, just some changes are needed.

Ben: I think you're referring to the small change to how the HMAC is computed
with the input plaintext. I think it would be good to give the WG a chance to
digest the change and object, but I don't think anything more than that would
be needed. It's a pretty straightforward change.

Zahed: There are not a lot of implementations so that could be one thing. I'll
take that. Murray has a Discuss on this as specification required and there was
no guidance given. I looked into that one. The thinking here is when I was
reviewing that, I saw bpsec has the same kind of text and it's the same
authors, so they just copied that one. Let's see and maybe there is more
guidance to the experts too. Other than that I think most of the Discusses will
be cleared, if I understood the emails.

Amy: Will this require a Revised ID?

Zahed: Yes, definitely.

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

 o draft-ietf-oauth-par-08  - IETF stream
   OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have no Discusses for this document, so unless there's an objection, it
looks like this one is approved.

Michelle: Just letting you know that we are still waiting for the expert review
to come back on this one.

Roman: Yes, I was tracking that too and I sent a note to the expert reviewer
that we would appreciate the turnaround.

Michelle: Thank you for your additional reminder.

Roman: I previously had committed to cleaning up a number of the registries
there in oauth so it's still on my list to make sure we have backup on the DEs,
because there are numerous registries in the same situation.

Michelle: We'll let you know if we hear anything from the expert. Hopefully
soon.

Amy: Sounds like this is going to be in Approved, Announcement to be Sent. Will
this require a Revised ID or do you want to hold it with AD Followup until the
expert gets back?

Roman: It does need a revised ID, there are some good comments. Thanks for the
reviews, everyone.

 o draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-04  - IETF stream
   Enhanced JWT Claim Constraints for STIR Certificates (Proposed
   Standard)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

Amy: Murray is not with us today but I have a Discuss in the tracker from Ben.
Ben, do you have an idea if your Discuss is going to require a Revised ID?

Ben: There was an update that was uploaded yesterday and I just haven't looked
at it yet, so it's pretty likely that will have resolved my Discuss. I guess we
should leave it in AD Followup.

Ben Campbell: Speaking as a shepherd, I believe that it does. I was going to
comment that he did put it out and I believe it addresses your Discuss points
as well as your comments and some from others as well. Everyone should check to
be sure.

Amy: Thank you, Ben and Ben. This will stay in IESG Evaluation, AD Followup so
all of those checks can be made.

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-drip-reqs-16  - IETF stream
   Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) Requirements
   (Informational)
   Token: Eric Vyncke

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

Eric V: I don't think so. The main author is on the call, by the way, thank you
for joining as an observer. Roman has written a nice Discuss point which is
being addressed right now by the authors. They are waiting for a few hours to
upload a Revised ID which I think should clear Roman's point. And by the way
isn't it cool that this draft name is pronounceable? More seriously, except if
other ADs want to talk about it, for me once Roman clears his Discuss it will
be approved. Of course there were also a few other points to be fixed but I
don't expect anything dramatic.

Roman: Thanks for the quick follow ups.

Eric V: Thank you Roman.

Amy: It seems like this will stay in IESG Evaluation with a substate of AD
Followup.

 o draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09  - IETF stream
   DTLS Tunnel between a Media Distributor and Key Distributor to
   Facilitate Key Exchange (Informational)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

Amy: The consensus I have here is unknown; Francesca, do you happen to know if
this consensus is Yes? I assume it's yes.

Francesca: I would assume so too, but I'm not 100% sure.

Amy: Okay. I also have a Discuss in the tracker; Ben, do you have an idea where
this is in the process?

Ben: Unfortunately I really don't. I mostly left this here to try and get some
more input about what the actual requirements are for this part of the protocol
interaction. There was the second part about the intended status for this
document, which perhaps we do want to discuss today. I think a few other ADs
had indicated they might prefer to see it on the standards track as well, so I
was hoping we could get a sense for whether we have a stance on this or not.

Francesca: To me it also felt like a standards track document and from what
Murray has written this was started as a standards track document. Not only for
the IANA registry, but for the whole document. I'm not really sure what would
it be to change the status? There would be a new IETF Last Call, I assume, and
then another balloting?

Eric V: If we want to go to standards track, there are a few things, like
there's a single point of failure, the key distributor, and it's a little bit
weak for standards track. But easy to address.

Ben: There is the risk that when you go for standards track people will give
more stringent review. I assume we're going to have to wait and see what the
sentiment of the WG is before doing anything. Thank you everyone for thinking
about it. Amy, that would suggest leaving this in AD Followup since we don't
know for sure that a Revised ID is needed.

 o draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09  - IETF stream
   Benchmarking Methodology for EVPN and PBB-EVPN (Informational)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Amy: I have consensus unknown here; should this be Yes?

Warren: Yes, please.

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

Warren: I do not believe we do.

Amy: Okay, this will stay in IESG Evaluation with Revised ID?

Warren: Yes please.

3.1.2 Returning items

 o draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39  - IETF stream
   Certificate Transparency Version 2.0 (Experimental)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have no active Discusses for this document, so unless there's an
objection it looks like this is approved. I'm hearing no objections. Are there
any notes needed? The WG summary has changed a number of times.

Roman: We're going to need a Revised ID, and I'll check the metadata. You're
right, we've been through the IESG a number of times and I appreciate some of
you now looking at this document two or three times. I'll go through and make
sure it's all correct. I also wanted to repeat what I'd mentioned previously;
this is the last document for the trans WG. My intention is to close the WG at
IETF 111; we're still going to meet the last time and see if there's anything
else for us to do. Just putting the word out, maybe largely to ART; if there's
some desire that trans do something else, please bring that to the list or the
meeting at 111. Thanks.

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

3.4.3 For action

 o conflict-review-zhu-intarea-gma-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-zhu-intarea-gma
     draft-zhu-intarea-gma-10
     Generic Multi-Access (GMA) Encapsulation Protocol (ISE:
   Experimental)
   Token: Lars Eggert

Amy: Do I have someone to volunteer to shepherd this document?

Erik K: I don't mind.

Amy: Thank you Erik; we'll assign this review to you.

 o conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan
     draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-10
     ICN Adaptation to LoWPAN Networks (ICN LoWPAN) (IRTF:
   Experimental)
   Token: Lars Eggert

Amy: Any volunteers to do the 5742 review for this document?

Eric V: 6LO is usually the other Erik's domain, so can you take it? Or to help
you I can take it? It's up to you.

Erik K: Martin said if there was ICN specific stuff I could reach out to him
for some help. I don't mind taking it and I'll probably also ask Pascal to take
a look at it with me.

Martin D: I was referring to transport specific stuff. I think it was Eric V
who had the ICN background.

Erik K: Sure. It's fine with me. I might coordinate on the back end to get help.

4. Working Group actions

4.1 WG creation

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review

 o Media Type Maintenance (mediaman)

Amy: I have no blocks for this going to external review, so unless there's an
objection now it looks like external review is approved.

Eric V: Maybe there is some urgency there. There are a couple of comments I
would love to have discussed with Murray.

Amy: Does it need to be discussed before external review?

Eric V: I'm not sure. If I'm the only one thinking this, I'm fine to let it go.
But there are comments, and maybe Murray will have changed a few things.

Francesca: I have a question. I saw your comment, Eric, and others about
creating a big number of small focused WGs. I just wanted to hear what is the
concern there? I've always heard that a small, focused WG is best to get things
done. It's the first time I've gotten the opposite reaction. Could you expand
on that?

Eric V: Personally, it's a lot of work for the AD and you need to find WG
chairs. It's basically just overhead. My major concern for this one is the
inclusion of the work item from [draft-muthusamy-dispatch-haptics]. We just
updated the charter itself. That's my only comment.

Ben: A few people had noted concerns about that, including myself, so I hope we
could finesse the wording there. With respect to the small WG topic, I don't
actually think this proposed work will end up being small, I think it would be
a significant amount of work just based on the broadness of the communities
that use media types and a desire to get something that's workable across the
entire spectrum.

Zahed: I agree with you, Ben, this is not a small WG. Or maybe the
participation might be small but the work is picking up and not small. It has a
lot of things to do. I hope they have enough manpower to do those things.

Rob: Francesca, I'd also commented about, and I think Ben and Zahed have
commented that isn't a small matter. My concern about it being a small WG
doesn't apply. The reason I raised it was because of two things; one was in
terms of doing the scheduling for 111, there's always lots of conflicts and
having lots of small WGs and a limited number of sessions makes trying to
resolve those conflicts harder. As we create more and more smaller WGs I think
we'll have a problem. I was initially thinking that just applies to the online
ones, but when you look at it, we almost have the same number of sessions for
the in-person meetings. That was where I was coming from. Related to that, I
know that one of the attendees had commented about exactly this issue about
having lots of small WGs and the difficulty of scheduling meeting rooms. It
looked like they were double booked for pretty much every session. If this was
small matter work and it'd come up in the ops area, I would have pushed it to
OPSAWG as a piece of work. That's what I would have done. Given it's larger, a
WG makes sense, but that's my position, if that makes sense.

Francesca: Yes, thank you.

Amy: So I'm hearing that external review can be sent, we're not waiting for
Murray to get back before we send this?

Eric V: As I was the only one, go for it.

Amy: Great, so that will go out for external review tomorrow and it will come
back for the next telechat.

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

 o Serialising Extended Data About Times and Events (sedate)

Amy: I have no blocks for this, so unless there's an objection now it looks
like SEDATE is approved.

Francesca: I think I have answered all the comments a couple of hours ago. I
got confirmation from Zahed that he was happy with the resolution. I don't know
if anyone else has had a chance to see the answer.

Rob: On the CBOR one, that makes sense to me. Is it worth having a line in the
charter to say they will liaise with or interact with CBOR?

Francesca: Because i feel like CBOR will take input from SEDATE, rather than
give it, I would rather not put that there. I'm worried that might confuse
instead of clarify.

Rob: Sure. It looks like Carsten is aware of it, anyway. Thanks.

Ben: I did get to see your responses and changes and they looked fine to me,
thank you.

Francesca: Then I guess it can just be approved directly.

Amy: That's what it sounds like to me as well. We have all the pieces for the
WG action announcement and this is approved.

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

Amy: Martin V is not here but I know he sent an email about IAB news we can
use. Are there any questions for Mirja or Ben C as IAB liaison? Okay, thanks.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1200145] Management Item: Acceptance of media type registration from
standards organization Gedcom (IANA)

Michelle: I put some additional information in the request to you all because
we'd asked some questions before sending in the management item. They came back
saying it was more of an informal organization. Normally Murray would be
involved with looking at these and he's not here. I'm really not sure about
this one. Has anyone else had a chance to look at it or did anyone else know
about it?

Ben: I didn't know about it and all the looking that I did was in the ten
minutes before the telechat, and I didn't get very far. I'd almost suggest that
we leave this on for next time and hope that we'll have more people looking at
it.

Michelle: Can you think of any questions that we should be going back to them
with in between now and the next telechat that would help provide you with more
information? Or is it just a matter of taking the time to take a look at what
we have here?

Ben: I didn't get far enough to have any specific questions, to be honest. The
stumbling block I ran into was that the actual specification was provided in
the form of a zipped PDF file and due to a history of security issues with zip
files I was not willing to rush into downloading it without taking the usual
precautions.

Michelle: Understood. Would it help to get a non-zipped file?

Ben: I guess so, but I would not expect that to be a significant hurdle. It's
just that I was in a hurry.

Michelle: Amy, can we go ahead and put this on the next telechat and we'll give
Murray a little more time to also take a look at this and weigh in? I'll go
back to the requester and see if I can get another form of documentation and
just let them know that it's going to take a little extra time to review to
keep them updated.

6.2 IESG Telechat Schedule between IETF 111 and IETF 112 (Secretariat)

Amy: The time is very short between 111 and 112 and I know the BOF stuff is
still up in the air timeline wise, because you have a discussion of that for
the post-IETF 111 meeting. It's already on the agenda. Leaving the BOF stuff
out, and any in-person retreat out, because that's also up in the air, this
seems to be the most likely schedule. The only question for you now is to do a
back to back formal on October 21 and 28 or not.

Eric V: Usually when we do a back to back formal before an IETF meeting, it's
always filled. I'd prefer to be on the safe side and do two back-to-back
formals at the end.

Amy: Because there are only fourteen weeks between the meetings, you can have
six or seven formal telechats. Generally we have between 7 and 9.

Mirja: You don't have to decide right now, do you? You can always convert one
to a formal if you need it.

Ben: We usually always have busy back to backs before the AD cutover in April,
but it's not entirely clear we'd need one in October. I'm not necessarily
objecting to it though.

Martin D: If we were to just have one, could we do it on the 28th? Otherwise
there's a huge gap between the last formal before 112 and the first one after.

Amy: We don't generally skip a formal, but yes we could do that. The telechat
after 112 would likely be December 2.

Rob: I think having two formals makes sense.

Amy: Does anyone object to having two back to back formals on the 21st and
28th? I'm hearing no objection, so we'll do that.

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

Francesca: I just wanted to say that I haven't seen any more discussion about
the OHTTP charter. I think the proponents have answered and the last word is
theirs. I'd be really grateful if, whoever had comments, to just take a look
and continue the discussion so we have a good BOF at IETF. Thank you.

Ben: Francesca, the HTTP part reminded me, have you heard any more activity
about the httpbis semantics and messaging drafts? I think I still have a
Discuss open but the conversation sort of petered out.

Francesca: Yes, I actually checked that yesterday. I've seen activity in the
Github but I haven't seen any answers, so I think it's on the authors. You're
keeping that Discuss open for now.

Ben: Thanks for confirming.