Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2023-iesg-08 2023-04-13 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2023-04-13 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2023-iesg-08 2023-04-13 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2023-04-13 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
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Dhruv Dhody (Huawei) / IAB Liaison
Martin Duke (Google) / Transport Area
Lars Eggert (NetApp) / IETF Chair, General Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Jim Guichard (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Erik Kline (Aalyria Technologies) / Internet Area
Murray Kucherawy (Meta) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / IAB Chair
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Karen Moore (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Ericsson) / Transport Area
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Éric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Robert Wilton (Cisco Systems) / Operations and Management Area
Paul Wouters (Aiven) /  Security Area

Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Sabrina Tanamal (ICANN) / IANA Liaison

Vittorio Bertocci
Chris Box
Brian Campbell
Mike Jones

1.2 Bash the agenda

Amy: Does anyone want to add anything new? Any other changes?

Lars: Let me update you later on what we discussed with the IAB yesterday on
the request to join this ICANN listening session.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes of the March 16
teleconference being approved? I see no objection, so we'll get those posted. I
also saw final 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 Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 9347, ESP
       AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD registry [IANA #1265971]

Roman: In progress for the next telechat.

     o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 7462 (URNs for
       the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol
       [SIP])[IANA #1266696].

Murray: This is pending; I've asked the SIPCORE chairs to recommend someone and
if they don't have any names I'll ask the WG.

     o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC-ietf-jmap-
       blob-18 (JMAP Blob management extension) [IANA #1267309].

Murray: Same answer, but change SIPCORE to JMAP.

     o Zaheduzzaman Sarker to find designated experts for RFC 8797 (Remote
       Direct Memory Access - Connection Manager (RDMA-CM) Private Data
       for RPC-over-RDMA Version 1) [IANA #1268765]

Amy: Zahed has found an expert and it's on the agenda as a management item to
approve this expert.

     o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for Structured Syntax
       Suffixes (RFC 6838) IANA #1270651]

Murray: I think for this one I'll end up recommending it rolls into what the
designated experts for media types do but I haven't confirmed that yet, so
we'll save this for next time.


     o Robert Wilton, Alvaro Retana, and Warren Kumari to report back to
       the IESG on the impact of COVID-19 to the IETF in July 2023.
       - On hold; added 2021-06-10

     o Éric Vyncke to follow-up with the tools team on auto-populating the
       approval announcement text in the "ballot text" section (document
       abstract, responsible AD, document shepherd).

Éric V: I still need to work on this; in progress.

     o Warren Kumari to follow up on a bis document for RFC 8126 regarding
       designated experts.

Warren: In progress.

Lars: I think this was where we talked about adding a thing for specification
required without an expert.

Warren: I'll have more of a look.

     o Rob Wilton to draft a proposal to the tools team for what the
       requested information regarding mail statistics should look like.

Amy: This is sort of related to the impact of Covid but you did say in Yokohama
you wanted the datatracker to do something for you.

Rob: This is involving drafts, not just mail statistics. It's not in progress
yet but it will be soon.

     o Lars Eggert to send email to the LLC about Letters of Invitation
       for Interim Meetings and Retreats

Lars: I have not done this yet.

Martin: That's a retreat item, right?

Lars: The LLC isn't going to be at the retreat. For them we need to discuss it
another way. But we can discuss what we think would be best in terms of
standards participation as the IESG and then figure out if the LLC can support
that. This is basically what Ted raised at the plenary; if we revise guidelines
for interim meetings to say the IETF LLC isn't issuing letters of invitation,
the current text says something like the host should be prepared to do so. Ted
objects to that  and one problem is that the word "host" here is wrong. I think
it should be "convener," i.e. the WG chair who's holding the meeting, but Ted
didn't like that either.. Ted would really like the LLC to do it.

Mirja: This is all what the IESG should discuss and put in a statement, so what
is this item supposed to be?

Lars: The question is, if whatever we come up with as a proposal is actually
workable from an operations proposal.

Martin: I misread the bullet item; I withdraw my question.

Lars: So basically if we need to do a legal analysis every time we issue one of
those letters for interim meetings, that might get very expensive very quickly.

Mirja: Do we have a concrete proposal of what we want to do? Or is it just to
check the legal requirements?

Lars: The IESG should discuss what we think should work for access to interim
meetings that's inclusive, and then we should involve the LLC at some point to
figure out if that's actually supportable.

Mirja: Right, so this discussion will happen before the retreat?

Lars: No it won't. We put this on the retreat agenda for us to discuss and then
shortly thereafter we need to tell the LLC what we're going to do.

Mirja: Okay, so this action item won't happen until after the retreat.

Lars: Yes, which is coming up pretty fast now.

     o Lars Eggert and Mirja Kuehlewind to figure out the start and stop
       times each day for the 2023 retreat in Seattle.

Lars: We'll do that next week. Martin, what are the opening hours of the venue?

Martin: It's an office building where people are coming in and out whenever.
The main constraint is forcing escorts to stay late into the night, so if we're
going to have a late night session we should probably take it somewhere else

Lars: No, but we can run until 6 or so?

Martin: That's not a problem.

Mirja: For lunch, can we have catered lunch or do we have to go outside?

Martin: I think Google can pay for one day of catered lunch, and there are lots
of options nearby.

Lars: But is catering an option, can we pay for that the other days?

Martin: The administrative assistants there are really helpful and I'm sure we
can get them to help orchestrate that. There's a sandwich place they use a lot
for catering and we can certainly work that out offline.

Lars: My suggestion is either we do catered lunch or have them reserve a
restaurant for us that we can walk to, and you can assume the LLC will pay for
that. If they want a credit card I'm happy to give them mine. Either they bring
in lunch and we pay for it or they can help us get a group reservation.

Mirja: I think catered lunch would be preferred from a time perspective. Maybe
you can figure out anything else with the secretariat.

Éric V: Especially for Wednesday with the big group.

Martin: Okay, I'll check with the staff to make sure they can support that.

Lars: If there are options for catered lunch besides the same sandwiches every
day, let's do that. I'd also be happy to go out once or twice.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-28  - IETF stream
   I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

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

Roman: No, there's been a lot of feedback and I appreciate all the time
investment the team has put in. I'm going to let the authors work through that
feedback. This will be Revised I-D Needed.

Amy: Thanks; this will stay in IESG Evaluation, Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-oauth-dpop-14  - IETF stream
   OAuth 2.0 Demonstrating Proof-of-Possession at the Application
   Layer (DPoP) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have no Discusses, but I have a note here from IANA that says they're
waiting for an expert review.

Roman: Right, I believe that still needs to close. Should I Discuss on my own
document to place that marker?

Amy: Yes, you can do that.

Roman: Okay, I'll do that.

Amy: We'll put it into AD Followup for you.

 o draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-24  - IETF stream
   I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model for NSF Capability
   Registration (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have a number of Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss those

Roman: We do not. I know this was another large document; thanks for the
review. Let's please mark this Revised I-D Needed.

Amy: Thanks; this will stay in IESG Evaluation, Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-15  - IETF stream
   OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication Challenge Protocol (Proposed
   Token: Roman Danyliw

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

Roman: Thank you for the review. If you could put this in AD Followup, I need
to make sure all the comments that need to be adjudicated are done so.

Amy: Sure. This is Approved, Announcement to be Sent, AD Followup.

 o draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-09  - IETF stream
   JSContact: A JSON representation of contact data (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Amy: I have a number of Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss those

Roman: We do not. If we could just mark this Revised I-D Needed, the authors
have started engaging about the feedback. Again, a big document, and I
appreciate everyone's feedback.

Éric V: This is one of my favorite topics, about charter compliance. It says
there needs to be a mapping between vcard and jscontact and it's a little

Roman: I have not looked at the charter; I engaged on this as responsible AD
late last week. I'll take a look. Revised I-D Needed on this one, thanks.

 o draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-07  - IETF stream
   JSContact: Converting from and to vCard (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

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

Roman: I appreciate the feedback on this one. If we can put it in Revised I-D
Needed, there are some things in the comments it would be great to merge.

Amy: This will be Approved, Announcement to be Sent, Revised I-D Needed. Thanks.

 o draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions-05  - IETF stream
   vCard Format Extension for JSContact (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

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

Roman: I don't need to spend more time talking. Please mark this Revised I-D

Amy: This will stay in IESG Evaluation, Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-09  - IETF stream
   Proxying IP in HTTP (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Martin Duke

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

Martin: No, it seems like that Discuss is progressing nicely. This is going to
be Revised I-D Needed.

Éric V: I wrote an email and as soon as they merge the PR, I'm done.

Amy: This will stay in IESG Evaluation, Revised I-D Needed.

2.1.2 Returning items

 o draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12  - IETF stream
   Service binding and parameter specification via the DNS (DNS SVCB
   and HTTPS RRs) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Amy: I have no Discusses; it looks like this is ready to go back to the RFC

Warren: There are a few nits which Matt Brown included in his DNSDIR review so
I'll include those when it goes back to the RFC Editor.

Amy: Do you want to get those fixed before it goes to the RFC Editor?

Warren: I was worried you'd ask that.

Amy: Are they the sort of things the RFC Editor will find?

Warren: I'll just sort it out with the RFC Editor and Matt and the authors.

Amy: Okay, so this is Approved, Announcement to be Sent.

Éric V: There are two linked documents that will be coming on to the telechat
in two weeks.

Warren: Thanks everyone for letting me slide this on to the telechat. Thank you

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-avtext-framemarking-14  - IETF stream
   Video Frame Marking RTP Header Extension (Experimental)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

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

Murray: Nope. I appreciate the feedback and I'm going to wait for the WG to
answer the Discuss. AD Followup, please.

Amy: Great; this will stay in IESG Evaluation, AD Followup.

 o draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-03  - IETF stream
   The 'sip-trunking-capability' Link Relation Type (Informational)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

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

Murray: I'd like this in AD Followup because someone asked why isn't this
Proposed Standard? Bringing it up would mean another last call. I want to ask
the question before we move forward.

Amy: Okay, this will be Approved, Announcement to be Sent, AD Followup.

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-benecke-cfbl-address-header-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header
     Complaint Feedback Loop Address Header (ISE: Experimental)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

Amy: I have no Discusses here, so unless there's an objection, this can go back
to the ISE. I'm hearing no objection, so we'll be sending this back to the ISE.

3.4.2 Returning items


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

 o Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption (masque)

Amy: I have no blocking comments for this recharter. Will this require external

Martin: What are the criteria for that?

Amy: If the changes are significant, external review is a good idea. If the
changes are insignificant…

Martin: It's fairly significant, it's the follow-on work. So I think we should
do an external review. Are there any actual comments that might require an edit

Amy: There's a nit from Rob, a question from Zahed, some stuff from Eric.

Éric V: It would benefit from a review.

Martin: Okay. I don't know what the state is to just give me a day to clean it

Amy: It's basically Approved, Pending edits, so just send us a support ticket
when it's ready.

 o Serialising Extended Data About Times and Events (sedate)

Amy: I have a block for this recharter; do we need to discuss it now?

Murray: I'm just seeing it now. It must have come in since last night.

Rob: Carsten has already responded to this and he's essentially saying yes we
are making a breaking change to something that everyone was doing in an ad hoc
fashion anyway, so I think his argument is that they were just trying to make
it less confusing than it is now. I think that's enough for me to probably
clear my block, but I'll likely request some additional clarification to the

Murray: That's fine. I was going to say, the basic answer to your question is
yes, but I'm glad he added that additional color. Whatever suggested text you
want is probably going to be fine.

Rob: Okay. Sorry [the block] was last minute. Thanks.

Amy: So we'll just wait for you, Murray, until you're okay to go forward?

Murray: Yes. I'll be in touch with Rob.

4.2.2 Proposed for approval


5. IAB news we can use

Roman: I still have not adjusted my dayjob schedule to support the IAB meeting
so I have no news to report since I only watched it in chat.

Lars: We did talk about this briefly, about the topic with the ICANN listening
session. Otherwise I'm blanking.

Mirja: Two things, one is that we're looking for a new candidate for the ICANN
Nomcom. If you have any good ideas, please let us know. The other thing we
discussed yesterday is this RIPE presentation we're planning to do and I sent
the slides earlier today and your help would be appreciated.

Warren: I served on the ICANN Nomcom a few years ago, probably six or seven,
and it's a monster time investment. It's basically like being on IETF Nomcom
plus plus. Just so people are aware.

Mirja: ICANN Nomcom at least gives you travel support.

Warren: That's true and I believe it's generally business class as well. You're
expected to show up at the next three or six ICANN meetings. On the RIPE topic,
something I've been discussing for a long time and hoped to do at this RIPE is
get a one or two paragraph or possibly just sentence summary from each area on
what it is the area has done or new things operators might be interested in.
Just mentioning that again; I'll potentially chase various IESG people around.
I think it would be helpful to have short summaries of what the areas are doing
to present at these types of things in the future.

Mirja: Initially I was thinking about having an area based approach to this
discussion but then yesterday we thought maybe people aren't interested in
what's happening in each area, but just what hot topics are in the IETF.

Warren: I don't think it needs to be presented on an area basis, but the AD can
be a person to poke for a summary.

Mirja: I think it would be great to have this kind of information for every
meeting or on a yearly basis or something updated regularly.

Roman: Also I saw in the chat someone asked about the current disposition of
CONGRESS, what is that status?

Mirja: We have this standing agenda item that's for status of new and
rechartering WGs and CONGRESS was listed there; people were just a little bit
confused about the status. No big issue.

Martin: We have a new charter underway and we're going to come back with a new
charter and new name. It's basically going to be one deliverable and then we'll
recharter rapidly.

Roman: Okay, thanks. I was just trying to find it and sometimes when we change
names there's not an easy throughline to follow.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1268765] Designated experts for RFC 8797 (Remote Direct Memory
Access - Connection Manager (RDMA-CM) Private Data for RPC-over-RDMA Version 1)
(Zahed Sarker and IANA)

Amy: Zahed has identified Tom Talpey as the designated expert for this
registry. Is there any objection to naming Tom as the designated expert here?
I'm hearing no objection, so this is approved and we'll send an official note
to IANA.

6.2 [IANA #1269969] Management Item: Acceptance of media type registration from
standards organization Java Community Process (JCP) (IANA)

Amy: I think this is just to see if they should be added to the
standards-related organizations that have registered media types in the
Standards Tree list.

Murray: Looks legit to me.

Lars: I agree. And we still have to add them to the preapproved list, right?

Murray: We don't have to, but it doesn't look like they're going to register
much anyway so we might as well. Of these types of requests, I have high
confidence to go ahead and add them.

Amy: Okay, then it sounds like this is approved and we'll send that official
note to IANA.

6.3 IESG Participation in IETF-IANA Group and IAB-ISOC Policy Coordination
Group (Lars Eggert)

Lars: This came from a suggestion Mirja had. There's this group we have that
occasionally meets with IANA to chat about how things are going, and Kim Davies
and Russ Housley lead it and there are some IAB and IESG members on it. For the
IESG at the moment it's Roman and Warren. The question is just whether they
want to continue, and whether someone else wants to step into the group. This
is something we didn't do in Yokohama so I'd better confirm whether people are
still interested in serving or if anyone new is interested.

Mirja: An in person meeting at every IETF meeting, we might reconsider that but
last time it was Tuesday lunch. I think both Roman and Warren weren't able to

Roman: Tuesday lunch is always the SECDIR lunch.

Mirja: I'm trying to figure out a solution because there were a bunch of
conflicts. Maybe we can move it to Monday, or maybe we don't need to meet at
every meeting.

Warren: I've shown up to some of them. As far as I remember it hadn't been
particularly drama-filled, so maybe it could be every other meeting.

Mirja: No, it's not. But the question is whether you want to continue?

Warren: I'm fine to do it, but I don't think I'm adding a huge amount, so if
someone else wants to pick it up that's fine. I'm happy either way.

Roman: I'm in the same position. It's low intensity, not so confrontational,
but it's important for us to have that visibility.

Lars: I'm not seeing anyone jumping up and down to get on to the group so I
guess we'll leave the membership as it is. Then there's the second one; is this
actually an IAB program?

Mirja: Those are called groups now, but it doesn't really matter.

Lars: This was recently created to coordinate between us an ISOC because we
sort of lost a little bit of the tight coordination. The group has only met a
couple of times. It has mostly IAB members on it but there's a possibility for
someone from the IESG to join.

Mirja: I wanted to open the opportunity. We usually have a bunch of things to
discuss about other meetings some of us go to about Internet governance, or
reporting on these kinds of things or any statements we write on the IAB. We'll
probably go to a monthly schedule for these calls but we're still trying to
figure it out.

Zahed: I'm half interested in learning about this. I can join in. Is it a long
term commitment or can I jump off the group if I don't find it interesting?

Mirja: This is just an offer if someones interested, it's not like we urgently
need someone.

Warren: I'm not sure if it can only be one person joining from the IESG, but
I'd actually be very interested. But if Zahed is interested he should go first.

Mirja: I don't think we want to expand this group immensely but a couple from
the IESG are fine.

Warren: Okay, I'd love to join please.

Lars: Warren volunteering is awesome, but some of you other non-Warren people
should also think about whether you want to do some of these things Warren has
been doing for us. Talk to Warren if you want to take over some of these. I
don't want you to get stretched too thinly.

Rob: If it helps, I can do the IANA one if that makes sense.

Warren: Sure, whatever you like.

Lars: Okay, we'll make the changes and add Zahed and Warren to IAB/ISOC and
drop Warren from IANA to add Rob.

Cindy: I'll make the changes and send out email to update everyone on the
membership of both groups.

6.4 [IANA #1270651] Designated experts for Structured Syntax Suffixes (RFC
6838) (IANA)

Amy: We assigned this to Murray at the top of the call.

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

Lars: You saw the email I forwarded. The ICANN board is inviting a bunch of
people into a listening session where apparently they're listening to us (and
other people) tell them the characteristics and qualities they should hire for
in their new CEO. I don't think they've done this in the past. We discussed
this yesterday with the IAB; it's a joint thing but maybe the IAB is a more
appropriate top level owner. The timeline is too short for us to go out to the
community and ask them to tell us what they think, so I think we're going to
try and write something up between the IAB and IESG. I'll run that between the
two bodies and we'll use it to provide oral feedback on that listening call and
we'll also send it to them in written form. I got the action item yesterday to
start writing something and I plan to do that tomorrow or Sunday. I guess we'd
make that public, because it's public anyway. This listening call is open to
observers but only those invited can talk.

Mirja: I think we have to figure out how exactly to do it. We should definitely
write something down so we have a common understanding of the points we have
and the feedback we want to raise. Then there was a comment that if we have
written it down we can also provide that to them. I don't know if we need to
provide the text input before the listening session or if we can also provide
it afterwards, which would also give us more time to get community feedback.

Lars: I think we can provide it afterward, but we can't really change it after
we give oral feedback. I think we should give them feedback from the IESG and
IAB, and then tell the IETF community here's the feedback we gave, but i don't
think we should try to establish some kind of community consensus.

Amy: Some reminders. Conflict of interest disclosures are due by the end of
next week. The next formal telechat is on April 27 and the next is one week
later on May 4. The first will have a 400 page count limit and we'll drop that
to 200 pages for the second.

8. Executive Session