Skip to main content

Narrative Minutes interim-2023-iesg-21 2023-09-21 14:00

Meeting Narrative Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2023-09-21 14:00
Title Narrative Minutes interim-2023-iesg-21 2023-09-21 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Narrative minutes for the 2023-09-21 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
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
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Jim Guichard (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Erik Kline (Aalyria Technologies) / Internet Area
Murray Kucherawy (Meta) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Nokia) / Transport Area
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area
Sabrina Tanamal (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Robert Wilton (Cisco Systems) / Operations and Management Area
Paul Wouters (Aiven) /  Security Area

Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / IAB Chair
Éric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area

Marius vd Leek
Lee-Berkeley Shaw
Tim Wicinski
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Liz: Does anyone have anything to add to today's agenda? Any other changes?

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Liz: Is there any objection to approving the minutes from the September 7
teleconference? I'm hearing no objection, so we will get those posted. Is there
any objection to approving the narrative minutes from the September 7
teleconference? I'm hearing no objection there either, so we will get those
posted as well.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat


     o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 9393 on Concise
       Software Identification Tags [IANA #1275658].

Liz: We have some experts to approve at the end of the call, so we'll mark this
provisionally done.

     o Rob Wilton to find designated experts for RFC 9445 (RADIUS
       Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services) [IANA #1279159]

Rob: In progress.

     o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for draft-yee-ssh-iana-
       requirements-03 (Key Exchange Method Names) [IANA #1281831].
     o Roman Danyliw to find designated experts for RFC 9447, ACME
       Authority Token Challenge Types" [IANA #1281679].

Liz: These are both new action items for Roman.


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

Warren: In progress.

     o Roman Danyliw to open a Datatracker issue suggesting a feature to
       better signal individual contributions

Roman: In progress.

     o Andrew Alston, Murray Kucherawy, Zahed Sarker, Martin Duke, John
       Scudder, and Jim Guichard to draft text regarding document
       authorship/editorship with regards to the number of authors listed.

Andrew: In progress.

     o Lars Eggert to facilitate a community discussion on priorities for
       IESG processes.

Lars: In progress.

     o Lars Eggert and Warren Kumari to 1) draft a revision of RFC 4858,
       2) draft a revised IESG Statement on Document Shepherds (original
       statement October 2010), and 3) update the WG Chairs wiki to point
       to the new IESG Statement.

Lars: In progress.

     o Warren Kumari to follow up with the tools team regarding removing
       the requirement of needing an author email for deceased authors.

Warren: In progress.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05  - IETF stream
   The 'haptics' Top-level Media Type (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

Liz: We'll change this Consensus from Unknown to Yes for you. There are no
Discusses for this document, so unless there's an objection now, it looks like
this one is approved.

Murray: I prefer to send this and the next one, which does have Discusses,
together, so can we put this in AD Followup please?

Liz: Sure. This will go in Approved, Announcement to be Sent, AD Followup and
we'll take our instructions from you.

 o draft-ietf-mediaman-toplevel-03  - IETF stream
   Guidelines for the Definition of New Top-Level Media Types (Best
   Current Practice)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

Liz: We will change this consensus from Unknown to Yes for you as well. We have
a couple of Discusses on this document; do we need to discuss those today?

Murray: Unless Paul and/or Lars want to talk about them, I don't need to.
They're pretty clear and I need to go back to the WG with them. Let's do AD
Followup also.

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

 o draft-ietf-privacypass-protocol-14  - IETF stream
   Privacy Pass Issuance Protocol (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Paul Wouters

Liz: We have a few Discusses on this document; should we discuss those now?

Paul: I'm not sure that's needed. Just put it in AD Followup. It's probably a
Revised I-D Needed but I'm not sure about that yet.

Liz: No problem; we can leave this in IESG Evaluation: AD Followup.

 o draft-ietf-lamps-nf-eku-04  - IETF stream
   X.509 Certificate Extended Key Usage (EKU) for 5G Network Functions
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Liz: There are no Discusses for this document, so unless there's an objection
now, it looks like this one is approved. Roman, is this ready to go as-is, or
do you want to do some final checks?

Roman: First I want to thank everyone for their timely reviews. I know there's
an -04. Can you just put it in Approved, Announcement to be Sent, AD Followup?
I just want to make sure that -04 caught some of the good feedback.

Liz: Of course.

 o draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-25  - IETF stream
   Federated Authentication for the Registration Data Access Protocol
   (RDAP) using OpenID Connect (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

This document was deferred to the next telechat.

 o draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-14  - IETF stream
   Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
   Response (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Murray Kucherawy

Liz: We have a Discuss on this document; would you like to discuss that today?

Murray: No, not necessary. It just came in this morning so I'm just seeing it
for the first time, but it looks fine. Let's say AD Followup, please.

Liz: Okay, so this will stay in IESG Evaluation: AD Followup.

 o draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09  - IETF stream
   DNS Terminology (Best Current Practice)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Liz: We have a Discuss on this document; do we need to talk about this now?

Warren: I believe the authors have responded to Zahed saying they will address
his concern, and Zahed said once they've done so he will clear the Discuss.
This is all done and happy. As a number of people have said, this would have
been an ideal use case for living documents, but after 8+ meetings including a
BOF/side meeting, I gave up trying to push that boulder up a hill. I still
think it would be worth doing. Maybe I'll try to revive the living documents

Liz: I'm guessing this will need a Revised I-D?

Warren: Yes.

Liz: Okay, this will stay in IESG Evaluation: Revised I-D Needed.

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

 o draft-ietf-lake-traces-07  - IETF stream
   Traces of EDHOC (Informational)
   Token: Paul Wouters

Liz: We will change this Consensus from Unknown to Yes for you. There are no
Discusses for this document, so unless there's an objection now, it looks like
this one is approved.

Paul: Let's put it in AD Followup. I think Murray's comments make sense.

Liz: No problem; we can put this in Approved, Announcement to be Sent, AD

 o draft-ietf-privacypass-architecture-15  - IETF stream
   The Privacy Pass Architecture (Informational)
   Token: Paul Wouters

Liz: We will change this Consensus from Unknown to Yes. There are no Discusses
for this document, so unless there's an objection now, it looks like this one
is approved.

Paul: Please also put this in AD Followup.

 o draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-12  - IETF stream
   Unilateral Opportunistic Deployment of Encrypted
   Recursive-to-Authoritative DNS (Experimental)
   Token: Éric Vyncke

Liz: We have a Discuss; do we want to discuss this now even though Éric isn't
here? We can just leave this in IESG Evaluation for Éric. Paul, as the Discuss
holder, do you think this would require a Revised I-D?

Paul: That's tricky to say.

Liz: We can just put it in AD Followup and figure it out when he is back.

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 Multiformats (multi)

Liz: We have several blocking comments on the MULTI charter. Do we want to
discuss this now?

Paul: I want to say that it's rare we get so much preliminary feedback from
other people in the community saying they don't want something. We should
definitely take that into account. Roman put some more details in about why
they say so.

Roman: I think there may have been some surprise from some that we did the
dispatch straight to charter, not dispatch through BOF. As someone whos' tried
it before, I've also gotten said feedback.

Francesca: Which, to be clear, is a totally fair way to go. You don't have to
go through a BOF.

Andrew: I didn't get to this one but I see it does need another vote. I'll get
to this either this evening or tomorrow. It needs a Yes.

Murray: I'm the sponsoring AD and I withdrew my Yes when I saw the massive
objections, plus when (Cullen/Colin) pointed out they put in this term about
not changing the deploy base, which is nonsense. We just don't do it that way.
There's a missing Yes and it's going to stay that way until a bunch of these
questions get sorted out. The negative feedback it got has largely been
sustained by others in the community and Mike wasn't able to be at the dispatch
session where this got approved so there's no reason to steamroll this at all.

Andrew: I'll still take a look at it anyway.

Liz: Should we just keep this where it is for now?

Murray: I think this has to be dealt with by the proponents. I'll bring it back
to this state before we go to the next one. It needs a bunch of work.

 o Structured Email (sml)

Liz: We have no blocking comments for the SML charter, so unless there's an
objection now this can go for external review. I'm hearing no objection, so
we'll send this out for external review and place it back on the agenda for the
next telechat.

Murray: Thank you Zahed for your point, it's a good one. Barry is the liaison
for M3AAWG so I'll sync up with him and Martin too.

Zahed: I think that would be good.

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

Roman: I wanted to remind everyone that the satellite communication technical
talk has been scheduled and that's going to be next Wednesday, the same time as
this call. In your mailboxes you have advanced reading related to the topic and
the Webex link. Coming our way is going to be the IAB statement on client side
scanning and a request for the IESG to co-sign, so stand by. There's also going
to be a launch of a new IAB website which is fancy looking. That's it.

6. Management issues

6.2 Discussion of TSV/ART Merger (Lars Eggert)

Lars: I guess there's no personnel stuff so we won't do this in an executive
session. This is better if Martin kicks it off.

Martin: Here's a document with a summary of feedback. There were mixed reviews
but generally the people who work in both spaces thought it was good. There
were mixed opinions on whether it's important to have a partner. There were a
bunch of people who said it was a great idea, which was nice. There was a
faction of people who thought we should blow up the IESG and do something
different so this is fine but not fixing the problem, which is orthogonal.
There were some who thought we should integrate with other SDOs better, which I
don't think we're interested in doing. I got a private response that thought
this is too disruptive right now and we should think bigger.

Zahed: Do you have a high level idea of what this bigger idea is? I went
through the emails and I wasn't sure I understood that.

Martin: I think it's in the spirit of a lot of the ballot BOF and what Rich and
Adrian are trying to do. Rethinking this whole concept of areas and ADs and AD
responsibilities and having a radically different model for how the IESG spends
its time, etc.

Zahed: I understand those. I didn't get any other actionable items that we
should think about for this specific merger.

Martin: I view that as orthogonal. I think people are going to use the platform
of modest IESG reform to push for radical IESG reform, which is fine. And
they're broadly in support of what we want to do. There was some feedback that
it's too late to start in the 2023-24 cycle but I think we've been talking to
Martin and he's been supportive. I think this could actually simplify the
Nomcom's work by eliminating one TSV position to fill. I'm sympathetic to the
idea that maybe one of the ART openings should be for one year. Are we ready to
approve the high order thing here?

Francesca: About shaking things up, I don't think this is a problem for the
Nomcom but it might be for the IESG that we are looking for a new chair and two
ART ADs. unless they're already experienced we're going to have to help someone
get into that position unless Murray is willing to continue. Two new ADs in the
role might be more of the shakeup rather than Nomcom not being able to do it. I
would be happy to help whoever gets into the position and I'm sure Murray would
try to do the same. It's one thing to consider.

Andrew: I think it’s only really a problem if there is no handover.

Francesca: I wasn't able to go through all the responses in detail so I'm
grateful for your summary. When I did read through a little bit, what came to
me was this is a good idea, these topics go together and it makes sense to have
an area. It’s a question of practicality, finding 2 ADs at the same time.
That’s the main thing we’d have to answer if we move forward. I also consider
that if we have a good thing that makes sense, it’s sad to have to delay.

Lars: I don't want to delay because we already delay everything all the time.
If we delay this it’ll be another year. Andrew already talked about the
handover. Typically you have an outgoing AD and someone who takes more or less
the same WGs they have up. You have another AD who’s done at least a year in
the same area but might not be familiar with the same WGs. We have you still so
there will be someone on the IESG who knows ART. We've done exactly the same
maneuver when we created RAI. Magnus and I were both appointed for transport at
the same time and transport didn't die. There’s an existence proof this is
doable. I think considering our community we got pretty strong feedback to do
this now. That's how I read it.

Martin: Does anyone want to speak up against this or have serious doubts?

Zahed: I'm for doing it now. I hear the comments about the chair position being
open. This will be effective on the next IESG when they’re sitting with the new
chair. Not hiring a transport AD might be less work for the Nomcom to deal with.

John: About Nomcom, in none of the meetings I've sat in on have they expressed
concerns. You've been in touch with Martin and communicating with him as much
as possible. They've had plenty of opportunity to express concern if they were

Martin: I'm going to take that as consensus for us to move forward. Here’s some
more minor feedback; Tommy didn't like the division between transport and web
and I think that's a correct assessment that we don't want to forbid someone
from knowing both, but the WAT area needs expertise in both sub areas. The two
ADs will develop a relationship; sometimes people are separate and sometimes
they’re married. If Martin Thomson was one of the ADs here he’d be qualified to
do anything, or Tommy for that matter. It will depend on the candidates. There
were some notes about where DTN should be; I think everyone is pretty happy for
it to be in INT given that TVR is already in routing. On the other hand, having
that crew in one place isn't a terrible idea. If someone wants to fight about
it I'm happy to have that fight.

Zahed: I think DTN is doing a lot more related to MANET and other things. But
pushing it to RTG will also increase the workload there so it might be a good
choice [in a smaller area]. I’m indifferent.

Lars: I think the same as Zahed. It’s between those two, INT seems to be the
area with more capacity.

Andrew: The RTG area capacity is a little limited at the moment. If there are a
lot of relationships between DTN and TVR, which I do find some, it’s a matter
of making sure they work well together. I think we do that elsewhere. I’m happy
with INT.

Martin: I think we have consensus here to stick with INT as the proposal says.

Lars: What's the name of the new area? We should probably finalize this, but
not on the call.

Martin: We got no useful feedback on the name. Can someone do a Slack poll on
this? I can do one.

Lars: Is there anyone who can't live with either of the two options?

Paul: I think WAT sucks.

Lars: But can you live with it?

Warren: I like WAT.

Andrew: I'm with Warren.

Lars: [The poll] looks like it's going toward WAT.

Martin: Would it be productive to give us 24 hours to come up with a better

Lars: I don't think we need to name it now. We can say in the announcement that
we have rough consensus for a name and ask the community what they think, if
they have a different suggestion.

Warren: You want to open a bikeshed on what to call the new area?

Paul: At least we'll get alternatives.

Warren: I think you'll simply end up with a lot of people annoyed that their
name wasn't taken.

Andrew: If anyone had any objections to the name we'd have heard about them in
this process already. I'll take that as people aren't too bothered.

Lars: Let's do another search of names by email in the next 24 hours. An area
can be renamed, so if we really pick something bad now we can change it. Let's
chat on slack and email.

Martin: So we tell the community we're tentatively doing WAT but open to
comment, or that we don't know what the name is?

Lars: Let's see if we can come up with a better acronym within the next 24
hours and mail it out tomorrow.

Rob: I think WAT is quite a fun name but I do worry about whether that's going
to wear thin quickly. I think a different name would be better.

John: I like what Lars said [in slack] a minute ago, WIT.

Lars: Let's continue on with the agenda and work on this in the background.

Martin: The other piece is what precisely are our Nomcom instructions? I think
what I'm hearing is that we don't want to change the ART job description
because we'll pick one of the hopefully three ART ADs to move over in March
formally. I would propose one of the ART openings be a one year term for all
kinds of reasons, to set up the stagger and to shake out a candidate. Does
anyone think that's a bad idea? [long pause] And the other instruction is not
to fill the TSV position. Lars, do you want to email them? John? Should I do it?

Lars: Formally it should go through John since he's the liaison, but it's not
secret information so anybody could do it.

Francesca: We're not in a super hurry to define this new area because the
description for ART applies to the new candidates, right?

Lars: We need to make sure the job description for ART is still accurate first.

Francesca: But we don't need a full new area description first.

Martin: We're going to take one ART AD and the remaining Transport AD and merge
them into WAT/WIT. We don't know who that's going to be officially. Maybe
there's an HTTP expert who runs for this and that person would definitely be
the WAT AD and you'd remain in ART. That would be between you and the other ADs
to work out.  I think we're done here. I'll draft an email that's built off of
this document and then tomorrow morning-ish Pacific time we'll have a name of
some kind and I'll email this out. Then John can follow with an email to the

6.3 [IANA #1281699] renewing early allocation for draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc

Liz: We've had a request to renew this early allocation. It's for one of Paul's
groups; Paul, do you have any comments?

Paul: I think I already gave feedback on this. This document is about to be AD
reviewed by me so this should be renewed.

Liz: Anyone have an objection to renewing this early allocation? Hearing none,
so we will send this official note to IANA.

6.4 [IANA #1281831] Designated experts for draft-yee-ssh-iana-requirements-03
(Key Exchange Method Names) (IANA) 6.5 [IANA #1281679] Designated experts for
RFC 9447, ACME Authority Token Challenge Types" (IANA)

Liz: These are both new items for Roman to find designated experts for these

6.7 [IANA #1282095] Management Item: Acceptance of media type registration from
standards organization C2PA - Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity

Liz: We've had a request from C2PA for a standards tree media type registration.

Murray: The reason we bring these things to the IESG is to figure out if we
want to extend a liaison to this organization if they think they'll do more
than one of these. According to IANA there is no plan for them to do more than
one, so I'm inclined to say no and if they come up with another we can revisit.

Lars: We can approve their request but not add them to the list.

Francesca: Does someone keep track of if more requests will come in?

Murray: IANA does a good job of tracking those.

Liz: So we will instruct IANA to approve this request but not add them to the
list. We'll send that official note to IANA.

6.8 [IANA #1275658] Designated experts for RFC 9393 on Concise Software
Identification Tags (Roman Danyliw)

Liz: Roman has identified three names for designated experts for this registry.
Does anyone have an objection to Charles M Schmidt, Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay,
and Henk Birkholz being approved as designated experts? I'm hearing no
objection, so we will send that official note to IANA.

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

Liz: Session requests close tomorrow, so please check to see if you have any
WGs missing from the list of requests.

6.1 Executive Session: RSWG Chair Appointment (Lars Eggert)

6.6 Executive Session (Andrew Alston)