Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2022-iesg-01 2022-01-06 15:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2022-01-06 15:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2022-iesg-01 2022-01-06 15:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2021-01-06 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

Amanda Baber (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Ben Campbell (Independent Consultant) / IAB Liaison
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Martin Duke (Google) / Transport Area
Lars Eggert (NetApp) / IETF Chair, General 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
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Robert Wilton (Cisco Systems) / Operations and Management Area

Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Murray Kucherawy (Facebook) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / IAB Chair
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Sabrina Tanamal (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area

Jason Bourne
David Millman
Lee-Berkeley Shaw
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Francesca: I'd like to discuss the BOF request for secure credentials. I sent
an email to the mailing list; I'm not sure how many people have seen it. I'd
like to take a second to discuss that. We can make it a management item.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes from the December 16
teleconference being approved? I'm hearing no objection. There were no changes
to the narrative minutes; any objection to approving those? Hearing no
objection, so those are approved as well.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat


     o Zahed Sarker to find designated experts for multiple Bundle Protocol
       Registries (bundle) [IANA #1217632].

Amy: Zahed is not on the call today but he's working on this.

     o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 6931, (Additional
       XML Security Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs))[IANA #1218411].
     o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 9140 (Nimble Out-
       of-Band Authentication for EAP (EAP-NOOB)) [IANA #1220123]

Amy: These are both at the end of today's agenda as management items.


     o John Scudder, Martin Duke, and Robert Wilton to review the document
       shepherd templates and propose changes to include updated questions,
       cross-area checks, and an expanded section on the use of YANG

Rob: I've got this on the agenda for next week's informal telechat.

     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.

Amy: These two depend on the first item being finished.

     o Robert Wilton, Alvaro Retana, and Warren Kumari to report back to
       the IESG on the impact of COVID-19 to the IETF in March 2022.

Amy: This one is on hold until March.

     o Martin Duke to draft a followup email to the community regarding the
       ADs 360 degree reviews to include text regarding bringing issues to
       the IETF ombudteam.

Martin D: We abandoned that. I drafted something and we decided it wasn't

     o Francesca Palombini to draft a proposal for requirements for
       archiving AUTH48 conversations between the RPC and authors/AD/
       working groups.

Francesca: In progress. We'll have a meeting before the next informal telechat.

     o Eric Vyncke to talk to the Tools Team about adding the page counts
       for documents getting an RFC 5742 conflict review to the telechat
       page count in the Datatracker.

Éric V: In progress; there is a tools team call next week and I'll bring it up

     o Murray Kucherawy to look into updating the guidance in BCP 13 on
       when to add organizations to the "Standards-related organizations
       that have registered Media Types in the Standards Tree" list.

Amy: Murray is not here today, so we'll keep this in progress for him.

     o Francesca Palombini to draft text on a virtual BOF experiment.

Francesca: I have a first draft of that and we can discuss it later in the call.

     o Francesca Palombini to come back to the IESG with a proposal for how
       to handle the Secure Credential Transfer BoF request.

Amy: And we just put this on the agenda for discussion as a management item at
the end.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-06  - IETF stream
   Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Francesca Palombini

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

Francesca: I don't think so. Right, Ben?

Ben: That's right, we don't need to discuss it.

Francesca: It will probably require a Revised ID.

Amy: Okay, this will be Revised ID Needed.

Éric V: I wanted to say to Francesca and for the minutes that this draft was
very easy to read; it was a pleasure.

Francesca: I thought so too. The authors and the working group have done a
great job.

2.1.2 Returning items

 o draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-24  - IETF stream
   URI Signing for Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Francesca Palombini

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

Ben: I don't think so. Phil sent a reply to me on Tuesday and I meant to reply
but I haven't had a chance to yet. I think we have a path forward.

Francesca: I think we can continue flying. Thank you.

Lars: It also still needs IANA re-review, I guess.

Francesca: Right.

Amy: Is that going to require a Revised ID?

Francesca: I think so but I'm not sure. AD Followup, I guess?

Amy: It's already in AD Followup so we can let it stay there.

2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items


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-dispatch-javascript-mjs-13  - IETF stream
   ECMAScript Media Types Updates (Informational)
   Token: Francesca Palombini

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

Francesca: I would like to check the replies and if updates need to be done, so
let's have AD Followup for this one.

 o draft-ietf-lamps-samples-07  - IETF stream
   S/MIME Example Keys and Certificates (Informational)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have a Consensus Unknown for this document so I'll move this to Yes.

Roman: Thank you.

Amy: And I have no Discusses so unless there's an objection now it looks like
this is reviewed.

Roman: Thanks everyone for the reviews. Can you put this in Revised ID Needed?
There are a couple of good comments about how the references should be treated
and some of the key words.

Amy: Absolutely. We'll put this in Approved, Announcement to be Sent, Revised
ID Needed.

Erik K: Can I ask a question? The text in here, the examples and whatnot, can
they be copied into people's unit tests without including the simplified BSD
license? ie, is it considered code, or are these considered constants in the
same way an IANA value or a value in a field is? Because I was reading from the
top and it says the code could be included with a simplified BSD license. I was
wondering whether that applies to these specific example elements.

Roman: That's a great question and I don't know the answer to that. It's
technically not code but it would be perfect for unit tests, which is what this
was written for.

Ben: I believe there is a bit of a dodge in that the actual files are also
available from Gitlab and probably other places, and they could have a more
permissive license from that source.

Roman: Maybe that's a quick question we can throw to the Trust.

Ben: Yeah, we'd probably have to ask the Trust.

Erik K: I don't know that it changes anything. I briefly had a comment that I
was going to send out last night and then I decided the document cites a
predecessor and if it hasn't been a problem since the 4000 series I thought
maybe I shouldn't worry about it. Just curious. Thanks.

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

 o conflict-review-gajcowski-cnsa-ssh-profile-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-gajcowski-cnsa-ssh-profile
     Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA) Suite Cryptography
   for Secure Shell (SSH) (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have a Discuss on this conflict review. Do we need to discuss that today?

Ben: I guess we probably should. I don't have particularly strong reelings on
this one; it's in the introductory section of the document and not the more
formal specifications so if people think we shouldn't worry about it, i'm happy
to let this go out with the response Roman selected. I just wanted to check.

Lars: Have you brought this up with the authors? It seems like something they
might just want to fix.

Ben: I don't think they really had a chance to look at it and inc contrast to
his recent habits, Adrian isn't on the call for us to ask him. Are you
proposing we leave the conflict review in IESG Evaluation for a bit and not
send something out?

Lars: I would maybe email the authors and see what they say about the

Roman: Why don't I do the following. Ben, I'll take your Discuss, and I'd
really like my first comment addressed by the authors as well. I was really on
the bubble about how strongly I should say I think we need this. I'll send them
a note and see whether it's as simple as putting in that sentence for clarity.
Depending on their reaction we can see what to do next.

Ben: I'm happy to proceed with that approach.

Roman: Okay, that sounds like a plan. I'll reach out to the authors and Adrian
and copy you.

Amy: Okay, we'll keep this in IESG Evaluation.

 o conflict-review-corcoran-cnsa-ipsec-profile-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-corcoran-cnsa-ipsec-profile
     Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA) Suite Cryptography
   for Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: I have no Discusses for this conflict review so unless there's an
objection now, it looks like this can go back to the ISE. Okay, I'm hearing no
objection so this will go back to the ISE.

 o conflict-review-deremin-rfc4491-bis-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-deremin-rfc4491-bis
     Using GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 algorithms with the
   Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: I have no Discusses for this conflict review so unless there's an
objection now, it looks like this can go back to the ISE. Okay, I'm hearing no
objection so this will go back to the ISE.

Ben: Just a note for everybody; 4491 was done on the IETF stream and Adrian
asked us to do a status change to move it to Historic, which I had planned to
kick off today.

3.4.2 Returning items


3.4.3 For action

 o conflict-review-crocker-email-deliveredto-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto
     Delivered-To Email Header Field (ISE: Experimental)
   Token: Lars Eggert

Amy: Is there a feeling for who would be the appropriate person to take this on?

Lars: Murray indicated that he would take it but I didn't update the
Datatracker. Can we assign it to him?

Amy: Yes, we will assign Murray as the reviewer for this item.

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


4.2.2 Proposed for approval

 o Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (stir)

Amy: I have no blocking comments for this recharter so this can be approved. We
don't usually approve these without the AD doing their final checks, so we'll
wait for him to do that and get it sent when he gives us the okay.

5. IAB news we can use

Amy: Martin V is not here and the IAB has not met since our last telechat so I
don't think there will be any news. Lars, is there any news?

Lars: No, the IAB is also doing some of the same things we are in terms of
Nomcom confirmations. The interviews for the ISE position continue, and there
is a second round of interviews for next week. There's also the ISOC Board of
Trustees selection going on too. Nothing else going on at the moment.

6. Management issues

6.1 Confirmation of NomCom selections (IETF Trust and LLC Board) (Lars Eggert)

Amy: Is this ready to be minuted without actually saying anyone's name?

Lars: No, it's not. Can we push this to the next telechat please? We haven't
heard from everybody.

Amy: For formal minutes we'll move this to the next formal telechat.

6.2 UPDATED: [IANA #1220123] Designated experts for RFC 9140 (Nimble
Out-of-Band Authentication for EAP (EAP-NOOB)) (IANA/Roman Danyliw)

Amy: Roman has identified Tuomas Aura and Mohit Sethi to serve as experts for
this; are there any objections? I'm hearing no objections so it looks like
these two are approved and we'll get the official note to IANA, making sure to
note the correct spelling of Tuomas Aura's name.

6.3 [IANA #1218411] Designated experts for RFC 6931 (Additional XML Security
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)) (Roman Danyliw)

Amy: Roman has identified Donald Eastlake and Alexey Melnikov as experts for
this registry. Is there any objection to naming them? I'm hearing no objection,
so we'll get this sent to IANA.

6.4 BoF Discussion

Francesca: I wanted to discuss two particular things. One is the credential
transfer BOF and the other is moving forward with virtual BOFs. I can take it
from here. I sent an email today and if you haven't read it I'll post the link.
To recap, we discussed this before and we didn't come to a conclusion for this
particular BOF but we said it would be good to draft some text to describe an
experiment for interim BOFs, let's call them. I started to work on that text
and by doing so I found that even before the pandemic we had two virtual BOFs,
LURK and ITS. I posted the links to the announcements of these two BOFs. This
was in 2016. There was some discussion on the IESG list about LURK that I found
where the previous IESG basically agreed that we don't need to stop their
progress, let's take this as a normal interim. It was approved and scheduled
with two weeks notice [like] a normal interim. Given that, I worked on this
text for interim BOFs and I'll post that link to the chat as well. This is the
more general text we can talk about and discuss for this possible experiment,
but at the same time I'd like to bring this particular BOF forward. I've talked
to the proponents and I do see a lot of negative points with waiting until IETF
113 for this BOF. There was a lot of community interest. So there is no reason
to wait more than two months for them to have this BOF. I'd like the IESG to
consider this and review the BOF request. We probably can't approve it today
but set a date where we would be able to do that.

Eric V: Francesca, on your last paragraph, it says the experiment should be run
between IETF 112 and 114. Right?

Francesca: I got confused with the numbers.

Ben: I think with this particular BOF the reasoning is pretty compelling that
we should try to have it as soon as we can and not wait for March.

Éric V: But then why not extend it to any BOF?

Francesca: That's why we would have this experiment. I was thinking the
experiment would say that we accept requests and will consider requests once a
month. That's probably better than once every four months. It's not any time a
request comes in we'll consider it, but we'll have one scheduled telechat where
we'll review BOF requests.

Éric V: Let's do it on every formal telechat then.

Francesca: So every formal we'll have a recurring item?

Éric V: If it's empty, it's empty.

Francesca: I don't think we've had so many BOF requests that we should not do

Alvaro: What about the IAB? Don't we need the IAB to look at this?

Francesca: I thought about that. When I wrote this text I only thought about
IESG approval, but of course this would need IAB approval as well. I don't know
how to put it in the text; I don't know if it's enough to say "the IESG and
IAB" here.

Alvaro: The IAB is not on the telechats, though.

Francesa: Right. I'm hoping to get Ben Campbell's opinion here as well.

Roman: Since we're talking about this topic, I guess I'm kind of curious
whether what we're thinking about in terms of the experimentation is really
relaxing what it means to be a BOF. Primarily when we're thinking about a BOF,
we're thinking about if we want a WG or not. The brass tacks of it is do we
have a charter that largely has consensus and has enough specificity that we
think we can make a WG? The means by which we get to assessing that and getting
to that charter text could be anything. It could be mailing lists. Maybe you
need lots of BOFs. Maybe you need one BOF. Does it really matter how we get to
the point where we think we have a charter text and there's an IESG member who
thinks there's enough evidence of consensus behind it and enough energy to pull
it off? Right?

Alvaro: Right, we don't need BOFs, if that's your point.

Roman: I'll poke even further. What do we need the IAB for? I missed it.

Martin D: The point of all of this process is to give especially the sponsoring
AD but also the IESG enough information to see if chartering the group makes
sense. That said, the procedural issue is that there's a lot of RFC around this
process for some reason that we can't just go and violate. That's what makes
this difficult. It might be better to not have all this process and just say
ADs can do whatever they want to ascertain this. If something is technically a
BOF there's all this procedure we have to follow. We had that whole fight on
our last telechat about if we should call it something other than a BOF. I
personally came down on the side of let's be clear what the purpose of this is
rather than use some term because of a procedural problem, rather than make up
some term nobody knows what it means.

Roman: The only reason I'm a little sensitive to this, and I'm using this as a
textbook example of why I want to talk about this, not because I'm concerned
about the result. Out of secdispatch we sometimes recommend, we think your idea
is tight enough, you should propose some charter text and we'll work it out on
a mailing list. We went through that process on a particular WG and the result
was, no, you didn't do a BOF so we need to continue talking. What was the
evidence that was missing that necessitated us going to BOF if we thought we
had consensus around the charter already? This is the ambiguity I'm trying to
tease out here.

Alvaro: Isn't the BOF just the formality of the actual meeting?

Roman: I don't know, that's what I'm trying to understand.

Alvaro: Otherwise we can't have that group meet because they are not a group.

Erik K: I thought it was to get a broader audience other than those who showed
up in secdispatch.

Roman: I guess what I'm pointing at is that if there was enough of a group that
seemed like there was consensus around this topic, we went to the IESG and the
IESG said yes, let's send this out to the community. There was ample time to
say if there was belief by the IESG that not enough people looked at this, you
should have looked more. The community has ample time to respond to that
charter text because it's going out there.

Martin D: Ultimately the question is, are there grounds for an appeal if we
don't follow the BOF procedures to the letter?

Alvaro: We don't need BOFs to charter WGs.

Roman: The point I'm making is exactly what Alvaro is saying. I'm not trying to
change what a BOF is, I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding that
we are decoupling a BOF with making a WG. A BOF is a means to help us do that
but we can charter as much as we want to our heart's desire, assuming the
criteria for making a WG exists, whether or not we did a BOF.

Francesca: I agree with you, Roman. I don't disagree with anything you're
saying. In this particular case, why a BOF if there was enough community
discussion? In this case, that's what dispatch recommended. That's what the
chairs told me; yes there is interest and there has been discussion, but we
think there needs to be more discussion so we recommend a BOF. And in
particular a BOF because it's more structured and you know what the goal is.
It's supposed to be WG forming so there will be a charter discussion and all of
that. I'm happy to go with what the community recommended for this one.

Lars: Some people in the community basically told me that they specifically
were okay with it going to BOF but they were not okay with it going to charter.

Francesca: Thank you for reporting htat.

John: Regarding Martin's question about would there be grounds for an appeal,
an appeal of what exactly?

Martin D: The charter of the WG. Let's say we had this "meeting" and maybe it
was a BOF or not. We decided to charter it because I think it's a great
project. There's all this legalism around the way that something that's called
a BOF is supposed to be structured. If there's someone who really hates the
idea that we chartered this WG, would they? If no one is going to appeal it,
let's just do it.

Francesca: The chartering process has a lot of review as well. People can still
voice their opinion and say they don't think it should be a WG at all. Then
it's up to the IESG and the responsible AD to say what they think the consensus
is. At that point people can appeal if they want to. That's for any WG,
independently of a BOF.

Martin D: As a devil's advocate, I guess, if I hated this WG I'd say the
community consensus needed a structured discussion in a BOF and you didn't hold
a BOF.

Francesca: I'd really like to have a BOF for this proposal because that's what
the community recommended and I'd like to go with what the community

Lars: Even if you didn't, I don't think it's cause for an appeal. Chartering a
WG or starting the chartering is an AD decision. The BOF is a means for an AD
to get information on what they should do. There's some process around BOFs and
how you run them but when the BOF is over it goes back to the AD and then they
decide if they want to start chartering. If the community thinks there should
be a BOF but the AD is convinced it can go forward directly, you can do that. I
don't think anyone can appeal that because you're allowed to do that, you can
start a WG without a BOF. Even if the community or some part of the community
said otherwise, it's an AD decision.

Martin D: Here's what I propose, we just schedule this thing for whenever we
want to do it, like late January or early February or something, and Francesca
or whoever can say we're holding a meeting that's not technically a BOF but the
intent is identical to a WG forming BOF, etc. We can talk about procedures and
scheduling and all that stuff. Let's just move forward. If you say "legally
speaking this is not a BOF" but the intent is the same as a BOF, just to be
completely transparent about what we're doing here, and then let's just move

Francesca: Legally speaking, that's what I was thinking before but since it has
already been done to hold virtual BOFs….I haven't seen any negative reaction.
We might be the ones who are being too careful about process here.

Martin D: I'm perfectly fine with you just saying you'll do a virtual BOF and
then if somebody squeals you can say it's not really a BOF, it's a meeting that
acts like a BOF. That's fine, let's just do it and if someone complains we can
deal with it.

Roman: I think we want to have virtual BOFs because in principle we want the
protection of the legalese. If it's not that, is it a side meeting? We have
this whole other bag of issues about what a side meeting is. If we say virtual
BOF we just say it's all the process we typically have but not at a meeting,
and that's the experiment.

Éric V: I agree with you Roman, except for the name. All the BOFs for two years
have been virtual during the meeting.

Martin D: Interim BOF, I guess.

Éric V: That's fine.

Martin D: Does anyone have a problem with this course of action?

Éric V: No, and to be honest, I got a request to recharter the SAVI wg and I
wonder whether we should follow the same path to see how it goes. This one is
mainly led by [people in] China and I'm mainly worried about the coverage. This
is my major issue with interim BOFs, is not enough coverage.

Martin D: Francesca, did you get what you needed out of this?

Francesca: Partly. The second thing I wanted was [about] this particular BOF. I
am happy with the result, and thank you. I wanted to also take a moment to look
at the BOF request. I put a link in the chat. Even if we don't do it right now,
because you might want to take time to look at it and give your opinion, to
give a deadline so people can look at it. I was thinking we could officially
approve it next week at the informal and also send it to the IAB as well so
they have a week to take a look and send any feedback. Would that be okay?

Alvaro: It's okay with me. I took a look really quick and the description
doesn't actually describe the work. It's more of a story of why we're here. So
I would say they probably need to update that before anyone can look at it.

Lars: They don't have a draft charter either.

Francesca: Yes, I think they should have it on github.

Lars: Oh, it's in Github. Sorry.

Francesca: You have comments on the description text then.

Alvaro: The description doesn't describe the work, it's just the story of why
this BOF is here.

Francesca: Okay. I'll bring this back to the proponents and I'll also start a
thread in the IESG and with the IAB and gather comments.

Lars: The github page that they say has a charter doesn't have ac harter, it
has a draft. I can't find a charter on the page.

Francesca: I know they have been working on the charter, but if it's not here,
my mistake. Okay, I'll figure this out and send it out by email. Then I have
everything I need for now. Is it going to be okay to officially approve it at
an informal telechat?

Martin D: Maybe it would be a good idea to start a google document to write out
some of the logistics of this.

Franecsa: I did, there's a link in the chat. We can discuss this more too.

Martin D: Okay, I'll put some stuff in here.

Francesca: Please put in comments or edits so I can see it.

Rob: What did we decide in terms of involving the IAB?

Francesa: I'll send an email for this BOF to get their comments as well and ask
everyone to review for next week. We usually have IESG plus IAB to approve the
BOFs, right? I don't know how we do it in this case.

Lars: We have deadlines but I don't know if they'll work for you.

Francesca: I mean if we want to do this in three or four weeks.

Éric V: But then we're not really following the usual procedures of doing a BOF
to create a WG. we're talking about something that's not really BOFs. Involving
the IAB is important but it can be by email.

Rob: My concern is how will the IAB feel if they think we're bypassing them?
They've always been involved in BOFs previously.

Francesca: I definitely don't mean to bypass the IAB, that's not my intent.

Ben Campbell: I'm going to step out on a limb here and attempt to speak for the
IAB, although I may be wrong. I'm sure Lars will have thoughts here. Send an
email to the IAB and if people can't review it in the time frame you're asking
for, they'll tell you. And I really think what you're looking for from the IAB
is advice and commentary, and the decision is still yours.

Francesca: That's great. I was thinking like if anybody from the IAB wants to
join to speak their opinion, they can.

Roman: In particular what I've always found helpful when I'm holding a BOF is
that I have my sense of what the summary is and I work with the BOF chairs to
also get that sense, but having that third or fourth opinion from an IAB member
that's also schooled in the processes to make sure nothing was missed is
extremely valuable. I'm saying this for both the prep in it but also the
participation when we have the BOF is really valuable from the iab.

Francesca: I was hoping that getting that input initially before the BOF is
approved or not could be done via email. We can let the IAB know when we have
BOFs to approve and they can join the telechat if they want. Okay, I will send
this email and see what their reaction is. For the text, what I wrote here was
basically that the BOF request for interim BOFs should be done using the
existing tool in the datatracker, and we'll add a recurring telechat item to
the first telechat of each month for approval. During the process we'll pay
particular attention to community awareness. This is basically the only thing I
thought we should pay particular attention to for interim BOFs. If the BOF is
approved, the responsible AD and secretariat will help the BOF chairs schedule
the BOF with 2 weeks notice as for other interim meetings. I also added a point
that you can still schedule non interim BOFs during the IETF week using the
current process. Martin, you added two points?

Martin D: Just my hobby horse about the two meetings.

Francesca: I wouldn't add that as mandatory, as I said last time. Because I
would still let that be decided by the chairs and whoever is scheduling. It can
be useful for BOFs but in some cases it might not be possible or necessary. It
could be encouraged.

Erik K: Is it about time zone reachability? Are we talking two, not three?

Martin D: It's up to you. The question is do you think you get enough input if
you hold it once? The reason I designed it the way I did was if you do two
separate weeks you miss arbitrary vacations. I thought a 12 hour shift was the
right balance. Everyone has at least one time zone that's not truly awful. You
could have six meetings and cover a lot but I thought two would be enough to
avoid waking up at 2 am. We could bikeshed about how many meetings.

Francesca: I would rather not say there will be two BOF meetings. I would say
it is encouraged that when scheduling, chairs should consider this, this, and

Martin D: I would encourage you to make this an AD discretion thing rather than
a chair discretion thing. The point is for you to get the information you need
and the chairs kind of have incentive to not have multiple meetings, because
they'll have to wake up at an ungodly hour at least once.

Francesca: What I'm thinking is in some cases, let's say people using Doodle
polls, they have a good idea of who's going to be there and they might not need
to have two. But we can definitely have some text about that anyway.

Martin D: Is the term sponsoring AD?

Francesca: I think it's responsible AD. That's in the BOF request tool. Lars,
I'm looking at the comments and you're saying the experiment isn't just to give
more guidance. Given that interim BOFs have already been done…

Lars: You're not just giving guidance, you're defining a more formal process
for them. Maybe that's what we should say. We should say [in here] that interim
BOFs have already been held in an ad hoc manner, so that people are not
shocked. The other thing which will add to your runway but maybe we should
consider; usually we send things out from the IESG saying we're thinking about
doing an experiment; this says we're going to do an experiment, which might rub
people the wrong way.

Francesca: I meant to say we're thinking of doing it. I also added a line that
we would appreciate your input or feedback.

John: Since we're on the call together, I thought I would say this out loud
instead of typing it into the google doc. Martin, you've put in the thing about
receiving Meetecho support. Do you mean they'll be hanging out real time in the

Martin D: I think it's worth paying for, I don't think we want this to be a

John: I agree, when they're on live it's more successful in general. But that
does imply that we have to pay for these things differently than we have to pay
for normal interims. I assume we're all okay with that? I have no clue how much
we're actually talking about spending. Anybody worried about that?

Ben: I think we can ask the LLC if they're able to provide this, and then
they'll decide if it's an appropriate amount of money to spend.

Roman: In the past we've run things on Webex and ad hoc platforms.

John: Meetecho has been known to fail at random times. They're incredibly quick
to fix it when it does happen but only if they're live.

Martin D: I think with Meetecho, the muscle movement of getting it on the
youtube, the show of hands tool which will be particularly useful in a BOF,
those are the main things. Obviously you can make that work with Webex if you
want to.

Roman: I don't want to make a technology choice [between] Meetecho or Webex. If
we decide that Meetecho is the tool of choice for our meetings, and we want to
give them the imprimatur of this being official like that, we should force the
use of that platform for that reason and also because it's easier to make the
recurring artifacts that we say we want to archive.

Martin D: My instinct is to give it all the logistical support it would have if
it happened during an IETF week. Because this is one of the more important
meetings we have. An interim is often informal and I just don't want it to be
like that.

Francesca: Any more comments? I see that we should run this for at least one
year. I'm okay.

Lars: If you're only running it for this BOF, you'll only have one example.

Francesca: I wrote it right before, I meant to do it between the next IETF and
the one after that, 113 and 114. This would be independent of this particular
BOF we're talking about now. And because we want to give four weeks time before
starting it. Depending on the feedback from the community we could send out
this email, ask for feedback for four weeks, and start it after IETF 113.

Lars: You're only going to get very few interim BOF requests which means you're
only going to get feedback from that small part of the community that happens
to have the BOF proposal.

Francesca: I agree it's probably good to have it for longer. I just wanted to
have an end date so we could gather more feedback at the end of it and decide
to continue it or not.

Rob: One concern I have is the optics of sending this email out at the same
time, either just before or just after having done one of these interim BOFs.
We say we're considering an experiment but we're actually [already doing it]. I
worry it's going to look like you're asking after you've already done it.

Francesca: Who was it saying we should have a paragraph saying that we've had
interim BOFs before when we've needed to have them, we just wanted to be more
clear how it could be done.

Rob: Then I think we should be framing this as, we want to do this, we're going
to do this one as an exception anyway because of time, give the examples, and
then say this is the process that will follow. I'm just concerned that doing
one of these BOFs first and then saying we're going to run an experiment seems
like the wrong way round. That's going to get people annoyed, potentially.

Alvaro: Is there any harm in waiting to see if this particular BOF works out
and then sending this out?

Francesca: No harm.

Alvaro: So maybe in February sometime we could send out the note, and if anyone
says anything, we can say hey we've had multiple interim BOFs and that's why we
want to try more.

Rob: That's fine with me.

John: That's a good idea. We've had a few ad hoc interim BOFs, and we'd like to
consider institutionalizing this practice. Then the experiment is
institutionalizing the practice.

Francesca: Okay, I have to formulate that in some way. I'll write this down
later. Any more comments?

Lars: We can comment on the google docs and maybe bring it back on the next
informal to discuss.

Francesca: We can even wait for the next formal. As we were saying, maybe
there's no need to rush.

Lars: We might run out of time on a formal. This is a great topic for an
informal because they're much less busy.

Francesca: Okay, sure. Maybe not the next one but the one after. We also have a
lot of people missing today from the telechat so I'll make sure they can see
and comment. If you have comments or text to add, those are great. I just want
to add a deadline. Let's say the informal on the 27th.

Amy: That's also the week for the first BOF call. It may be entirely
appropriate to bring this up during the first BOF call, but that's the same

Lars: I think it would be a feature if we discuss this with the IAB. We don't
seem to be terribly busy on the BOF call given the requests we have at the
moment. We can always move it if we run out of time.

Amy: The doodle poll is out now to set the time for that meeting, so we don't
know when it will be yet but it will be that week sometime.

Francesca: So just to recap, I will start a thread for this experiment text. It
would be good to involve the IAB as well. We will hopefully finalize it during
the BOF call or if we don't have time, the informal after the BOF call. Does
that sound good to everybody? I don't hear objections. For this secure
credential transfer BOF, I'll also start a thread and get feedback both from
IAB and IESG on that and I'll set a deadline of one week. If one week is too
short someone please let me know. Hopefully we can approve or not approve at
the next informal [13 January]. I think I have everything I needed. Thank you
so much, this was very productive.

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

Éric V: As I have mentioned we can expect the source address validation BOF
coming back, more focused on inter area stuff rather than intra area.

Ben: Say the name of the BOF one more time?

Éric V: Source address validation, so it's basically anti-spoofing.

Ben: Thanks, I didn't hear it properly the first time.

Lars: The WG is closed, right? SAVI is closed?

Éric V: Correct, it has been closed for two or three years now. It was mainly
focusing on within one operator, where you manage all the routing tables and
anti spoofing and so on. Now they want to extend it to something which is

Lars: I don't remember much of the SAVI discussions but I think this whole
thing across operators was a huge point for discussion and we specifically
narrowed it to intra-operators. So let's see what comes out.

Éric V: I think it's worth trying.

Lars: Some people had contacted me about a BOF on giving nomcom feedback about
term limits. I've now seen some hesitation, some people who are saying this is
really important but we can't lead it, and I basically responded saying that if
you don't lead it, I don't know if the BOF will happen. So I don't know if
we'll see a BOF proposal there. That would be in the gen area. I have another
thing for IANA. Michelle Cotton is no longer with IANA and she's been the
liaison to the IESG and also the IAB. I wonder if IANA has thought about who
the liaison will be going forward? Specifically for the IESG but I'm guessing
Mirja will want to know as well for the IAB.

Amy: We got an email from Amanda saying that Sabrina will take it most times,
but I know Amanda is here today if she wants to speak to that.

Amanda: Sure. Sabrina just couldn't make it today, but it will regularly be
her. We're not sure yet about the IAB.

Lars: Okay, so basically we'll replace Michelle with Sabrina. Does she have
access to the IESG wiki and the address book and that sort of stuff?

Amanda: I don't know.

Lars: Could you check with her? And Greg, I guess we should update the IETF
website as well, since I think there are still some pages where Michelle is
listed. I also talked to Kim Davies and there's this IETF-IANA group which
meets around IETF meetings. We have the option of doing interim meetings so
we're looking at doing one of those around February to talk about the IETF-IANA
relationship and how it will or won't change based on the personnel changes on
the IANA side. There are a few of you involved in that and there will be a
report of some sort to the IESG and IAB once that meeting has happened. The
only other thing I have is that you've seen the announcement for Vienna has
gone out. Registration is not open yet because we are switching VAT processing
companies and part of that switch means that all the LLC board directors need
to send a whole bunch of documents to that company to prove we're not lying or
money laundering. That's in progress and as soon as we know the VAT can be
processed, we'll open registrations. We're hoping that will happen in a week or
two. In the meantime you've probably also seen that some people have asked
questions about the logistics. The secretariat is preparing some documentation
about hotel room cancellation rules, testing requirements, and all that stuff.
There is some information coming for the community that you can also find if
you google it yourself. Some people also want to see it at so we'll
put it there. We the IESG will continue to monitor the attendee situation and
figure out whether the meeting can be productive. At the moment we don't have
any registration numbers yet so we don't know but we have heard several
companies have travel bans in place so we'll have to see what that's like going
forward. As Jay said in his email, we have a pretty robust cancellation and
rebooking clause so we shouldn't feel shy to use that if we feel the meeting
won't be productive.

Roman: I haven't looked at the registration process in detail in years. So we
get a sense of how many people are participating, can we switch? Is it easy if
I register that I'm coming physically, can I make it virtual, and if I register
virtually, can I upgrade to in-person?

Lars: We want to make it easy but we don't have the details yet. The point is
to make it easy for people to convert registration types as things change.

John: I sent an email to that effect a few days ago. We want to not have a
human in the loop on that process since there could easily be hundreds of them.

Lars: I don't know how they support it on the back end.

Greg: I've spoken to Alexa about a number of these issues and some of the
details are still being worked out but we will have an FAQ that will detail
these questions.

Martin D: I have an optimistic question. Do we have strict capacity limits on
the venue? If things clear up magically and we get way more in person
registrations than we budgeted for? Would we have to close registration if 900
people want to come?

Greg: I think that answer has a number of layers to it that should be worked
out with the secretariat. We're definitely including that as part of the

Martin D: If we need to identify key people, we could have an early
registration window for key personnel if we think it's a concern.

Gerg: I don't have the answer to that now but we can work that out.

Lars: We can take that offline to the ops call. Instead of doing this early
registration we can hold back a few. I'm not quite as optimistic as you are but
I would want to have that problem.

Martin D: I'm not really either but I wouldn't want to have a situation where
chairs put off registering and then they can't come.

Lars: The way I understand it is there's some flexibility in the venue in terms
of meeting rooms but not all the way up to regular capacity. I think we
budgeted for 500 or so. What I don't know is whether we have similar
flexibility in the room allocation which might mean that people need to go to
other hotels if we have this problem. I don't know if we have overflows

Martin D: I think it's not quite so much about hotels and room prices but more
like, what if I fly all the way to Vienna and then I have to participate on
Meetecho from my hotel room because there's no room in the ballroom, or worse
yet I can't register because it's full?

Lars: If conditions are such that lots of people want to travel that might also
mean we don't have to have super strict distancing in rooms. There are lots of
effects. We don't know until we know.

Martin D: Two separate questions here, one is there a meeting wide ceiling and
is there normally a ceiling per room? Or is it just the capacity of each

Lars: There are ceilings but they're always negotiable if the venue has

Rob: Are we going to have a minimum of how many people we'll require before we
cancel? Is that something we're considering?

Lars: That's something the LLC is not considering. It's actually the IESG's
decision whether the meeting can be productive if we have less than any
specific number of people. That's why I said we need to collectively monitor
participation across areas to see if the meeting will be productive at all or
we go online. I don't think we have a number. I guess half seems fine, the 500
number? The South America meeting was not much bigger than that. Getting back
to that size might be a good thing. If we're getting to 200 people, that's a
bit small, could we be productive?

Rob: My concern would be how do we actually tell? If people say yes I'm going
to attend in person, and then cancel at the last minute, it's hard to get a
good indicator. It just depends so much on what the restrictions end up being
just before.

Lars: Exactly. My personal default would be to try to have the meeting unless
it's very clear we can't travel to Austria. The LLC has said they're okay with
the financial risk even for a smaller meeting and there's not much difference
between a small meeting and a rebooked meeting.

Rob: I wonder if that's something we should try to communicate to the
community, to let them know.

Lars: Before we do, I need to check with Jay to make sure I'm correct. And we
do have cancellation clauses if we need to.

Martin D: The worst case is that we're surprised and the meeting is just on
Meetecho with two people in the hotel room. That's not great but it's not like
the whole meeting collapses, it's just a pointless trip.

Lars: I have one more thing, I got invited by the ITU-T to participate in the
world standards information society thing. Apparently it's me participating in 
a panel discussion and I have no information other than the title of the
session. I'll let you know when I know more.

Erik K: I think there was a similar request made of Alissa.

Lars: It's a standing thing. The session is called High Level Dialogue on
Unlocking the Full Potential of Digital Transformation for the SDGs with
International Standards. SDGs are Sustainable Development Goals, not standards
development groups. Your guess is as good as mine.

Amy: Okay, I think that's it for today. We'll talk next week.