Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2022-iesg-17 2022-08-11 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2022-08-11 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2022-iesg-17 2022-08-11 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2022-08-11 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

Andrew Alston (Liquid Intelligent Technologies) /  Routing Area
Amanda Baber (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Martin Duke (Google) / Transport Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Erik Kline (Aalyria Technologies) / Internet Area
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
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Paul Wouters (Aiven) /  Security Area
Qin Wu (Huawei) / IAB Liaison

Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Lars Eggert (NetApp) / IETF Chair, General Area
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Zaheduzzaaman (Zahed) Sarker (Ericsson) / Transport Area
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area
Sabrina Tanamal (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Robert Wilton (Cisco Systems) / Operations and Management Area

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: We have the July 14 teleconference under review. Does anyone have an
objection to these minutes being approved? I'm hearing no objection, so these
are approved. We also have the final narrative minutes from July 14; any
objection to those being approved? I'm hearing no objection, so those are
approved as well.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat


     o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 8809 (WebAuthn)
       [IANA #1229681].

Amy: This is an item for Roman, who's not here today.

     o Paul Wouters to find designated experts for RFC 9258 (TLS KDF
       Identifiers) [IANA #1234294]

Amy: Paul, this is a new action item for you.

Paul: I reached out to the TLS experts and got one positive from Rich Salz and
I'm waiting for the other two to get back to me. I'm assuming it will just be
the same as the other TLS registries.

Amy: Do you want to put in a management item for the next telechat to approve
them and you can give us the names?

Paul: Sure.


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

This item is on hold.

     o Lars Eggert to follow-up on the management of the IETF non-wg
       mailing lists.

Lars is not with us today.

     o The IESG to look into adding a question to the post-meeting survey
       about extending the length of the meeting day during IETF meetings.

Amy: I believe this is done because the survey is out. We'll mark this as done.

     o Lars Eggert to send email to Roman Danyliw about drafting text to
       working group chairs about side meetings.

Lars is not with us today.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-07  - IETF stream
   TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now
it looks like this is approved. WIth the length of the comments I'm seeing
let's keep this in AD Followup so that Roman can make sure that any comments
that need to be incorporated are.

Paul: I know they will do another update for this document.

 o draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-12  - IETF stream
   The Use of maxLength in the RPKI (Best Current Practice)
   Token: Warren Kumari

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

Warren: Maybe.

Andrew: I can give a bit of an update on that. I was chatting to Ben Madison
and we were debating the wording of that clause, because in my mind it's
extremely confusing. I asked a number of people how they would interpret that
clause and got numerous different replies. He's got some proposed wording that
I'm considering and I told him I'd let him know in the next 24 hours otherwise
we'll need to look at something else.

Warren: Okay. I guess I don't entirely understand the confusion. A RAO lists a
bunch of IPs, and an AS number…

Andrew: When it refers to an AS number of an AS, that leads to some interesting

Eric V: To be honest I was about to file a clarification on this because it was
really difficult to read.

Warren: Really? Okay. I'm sure you're right but I'm still not seeing the issue.

Andrew: In the chat I just pasted what Ben proposed that I'm considering. I'd
like to hear your thoughts on that piece of text. It changes it to "the AS
number of one of the ASs authorized to…"

Warren: To me that means the same thing. I guess I don't understand the
difference between what you proposed and what it said.

Eric V: Where I'm choking on it is that it's kind of repeating. It's just the

Andrew: It's just the wording that's confusing, not the meaning.

Warren: I believe you because you sound confused. The number of an AS that's an
authorized AS …. It's the AS number of an authorized AS. If you prefer this
other text, I'm fine with it and I presume the authors are as well. I don't
really understand the confusion but I'm happy to have other text there.

Andrew: I'm chatting to Madison at the moment.

Warren: Awesome. So I guess once the Discuss clears it will be approved?

Andrew: I think there's got to be a Revised ID because there will be another
version coming anyway.

Amy: It stays in IESG Evaluation until the Discuss clears, so it's Revised ID

Andrew: It needs another [position] anyway because people are out.

Amy: It doesn't quite have enough positions to pass.

Alvaro: Can you make sure this goes into BCP 185? I think you just need to put
an RFC Editor note.

Warren: I will have a look and see what that number is, but, sure. Do I send
email to the RFC Editor?

Amy: In the Datatracker there is a section for IESG notes to the RFC Editor. It
doesn't require any more process than just letting the RFC Editor know it's
part of that BCP group.

2.1.2 Returning items


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


3.1.2 Returning items


3.2 Individual submissions via AD
3.2.1 New items


3.2.2 Returning items


3.3 Status changes
3.3.1 New items


3.3.2 Returning items


3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
3.4.1 New items


3.4.2 Returning items


4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review

 o NomCom Eligibility Update (elegy)

Amy: I have no blocks so unless there is an objection this is ready for
external review.

Alvaro: I think this is a decision we need to make because Lars isn't here and
didn't ballot. We should put it through external review, right, without waiting
for him?

Amy: He specifically said in the ticket to us "Do not wait for me;" if any
comments come in he will pick it up in external review.

Murray: Yet he didn't ballot on it? That's weird. I think it's strange that
when you put a charter up for any state it doesn't pre-ballot the state for you
like it does for documents. I've been caught by this as well.

Amy: If you think the Datatracker should change its behavior in that way maybe
you can submit a ticket for an update.

Murray: I'm predisposed to think it's that way for a reason, but I don't know
what the reason is.

Warren: I think it's that it didn't used to ballot automatically for drafts and
then we asked them to ballot automatically for drafts and just didn't ask to do
it for this.

Murray: That works for me. I'll send a ticket over.

Amy: Thanks. This is approved for external review and we'll put this on the
agenda again for two weeks from today.

 o Media Over QUIC (moq)

Amy: I have no blocks for MOQ, so unless there is an objection I think this is
also approved for external review.

Murray: There have been some comments I want to fold in; is there a revised
charter needed substate or do you just wait for me? Last time I looked there
were not ten ballots yet; do I need to wait for that?

Amy: WG charters don't need ten. It just needs one yes and no Discusses. After
you edit the charter and you're satisfied with it, send us a ticket and we can
make sure it goes into the right places.

Murray: Thanks.

Amy: So this is approved, pending edits to the charter.

 o Revise Universally Unique Identifier Definitions (uuidrev)

Amy: I have no blocks, so unless there's an objection this is also approved for
external review.

Murray: Same situation; I have to put a couple of revisions in and I'll send
you a ticket.

Amy: Great; this is now approved, pending edits and you can let us know when
it's ready.

4.1.2 Proposed for approval


4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review


4.2.2 Proposed for approval


5. IAB news we can use

Warren: There was an IAB meeting yesterday. There are a couple of workshop
announcements that people should read. I'll paste the link in the chat. There
was also a long discussion on namespaces and alternate resolution systems with
action items from that. At some point the IAB might publish an opinion or
statement and we might organize a cross-community group to discuss it. There
are also a number of documents the IAB is still working on, some of which are
in community review. I think that's about it. Some discussion on the WG
chartering which we've already covered in this meeting, and some discussion on
whether the IAB wants to have a statement on routing security or a workshop on
something like replacing BGP, but keep in mind this is very early days.
Basically there had been some discussion at the IAB/IESG workshop that securing
BGP is difficult, we've been trying it for a long time, and BGP was designed a
long time ago. Russ White has been having some discussions that maybe the BGP
protocol itself is worth looking at and discussing perhaps replacing it with
something more modern, or at least if we were to design something new what
would it look like? Again, that's very early days.

Alvaro: I just hope it's not called "replacing BGP," but other than that I

Mirja: Part of the discussion is about if there's ever a way to replace BGP or
not, figuring that part out.

Amy: Thank you Warren and Mirja.

6. Management issues

6.1 Assigning AI -  [IANA #1234294] Designated experts for RFC 9258 "Importing
External Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) for TLS 1.3" (IANA)

Amy: This is the new item for Paul we discussed at the top of the call.

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

Martin: Do we have a timeline to decide on the retreat?

Amy: We don't, but we should know in the next two weeks. I'm waiting for Lars
to get back from vacation to talk to him about the dates. There were no good
dates in the poll.

Martin: I just responded again, because apparently you can scroll to the right.

Warren: I didn't fill in the thing because as with many of these, there's no
date that's brilliant but no matter what date is chosen I can rearrange to make
it work.

Eric V: I remember we said we would decide by the end of August.

Amy: Thanks everyone, I think we can leave it here for today.