Narrative Minutes interim-2024-iesg-15: Thu 14:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2024-iesg-15-202407111400-00

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2024-07-11 IESG Teleconference

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

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Deb Cooley / Security Area
Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / IETF Chair, General Area
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison
Jim Guichard (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Mahesh Jethanandani (Arrcus) / Operations and Management Area
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Tommy Pauly (Apple) / IAB Chair
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Nokia) / Web and Internet Transport Area
Orie Steele (Transmute) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Sabrina Tanamal (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Gunter Van de Velde (Nokia) / Routing Area
Éric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Paul Wouters (Aiven) /  Security Area

REGRETS
---------------------------------
Erik Kline (Aalyria Technologies) / Internet Area
Murray Kucherawy (Meta) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Web and Internet Transport Area
David Schinazi (Google) / IAB Liaison
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
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: We have quite a few minutes to approve today because we had two
back-to-back telechats before the retreat. Does anyone have an objection to
approving any of the following: Formal minutes of the June 13 teleconference?
I'm not hearing an objection, so those are approved. Narrative minutes of the
June 13 teleconference? I'm not hearing an objection, so those are approved.
Formal minutes of the June 20 teleconference? I'm not hearing an objection, so
those are approved. Narrative minutes of the June 20 teleconference? I'm not
hearing an objection, so those are approved. Public minutes of the May 29 BOF
call? I'm not hearing an objection, so those are approved. We'll post all of
those in the public archives.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

   * DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED

     o Paul Wouters to find designated experts for RFC 9577 (The Privacy
       Pass HTTP Authentication Scheme) [IANA #1366921].

Paul: I thought we did this on the last call? As far as I know I had proposed
Tommy Pauly and Christopher Wood. I'm not sure if I'm having a deja vu moment
or if this didn't get resolved. It's probably me.

Liz: We occasionally make a mistake; we'll check on that and figure it out.

   o Éric Vyncke to find designated experts for RFC 9575 (DRIP Entity
      Tag (DET) Authentication Formats and Protocols for Broadcast
      Remote Identification (RID)) [IANA #1367328]

     o Éric Vyncke to find designated experts for RFC 9606 (DNS Resolver
       Information") [IANA #1367528].

Liz: Éric, you have two here; we have a management item to approve some experts
for 9606 at the end of the call and 9575 is a new one for you.

Eric V: Correct. And we can remove the approval of the 9606 for today; I need
to think more on it.

Liz: Great, then we will leave those both in progress for you.

   * OPEN ACTION ITEMS

     o Roman Danyliw 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.

Liz: Did you get around to talking about this during retreat week?

Roman: We didn't. Warren, we should try to huddle up at 120.

     o Paul Wouters to write a proposal for handling IANA review
       mailing lists.

Liz: I think you may have done this but we ran out of time to review it at the
retreat; do you want to keep this item?

Paul: Yeah, let's put it as an item for the next informal.

Liz: We don't have an informal before IETF 120; do you want to add it to a 120
agenda or an informal after the meeting?

Paul: Sure, make it a non-important, non-urgent, if we have time item for the
meeting.

     o All IESG to review Non-WG List Review spreadsheet and note
       which lists may be ready for closure and any needed AD Actions.

Liz: Any updates or questions to share on this?

Roman: Next week I'm going to do a review of that spreadsheet and see how much
longer we need to keep this open.

     o Orie Steele, Francesca Palombini, Murray Kucherawy, Mahesh Jethanandani,
       Warren Kumari to write draft of IESG statement addressing issue of
       credit in documents & the importance of capturing and addressing all
       comments as a necessary part of the consensus process, mostly
       pointing at existing advice.

Warren: In progress.

Orie: I've started a google document so we can get started.

     o Murray Kucherawy and Eric Vyncke to create a draft IESG statement
       about using 2119 language.

Eric V: In progress. I have to talk with Murray about it.

     o Murray Kucherawy to draft an IESG statement on use of Internet-Drafts
       to meet "specification required" in IANA registries.

Liz: Murray isn't on the call, so we'll mark this in progress for him.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-08  - IETF stream
   Notification of Revoked Access Tokens in the Authentication and
   Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Paul Wouters

Liz: We have a Discuss for this document; do we want to discuss this now?

Paul: No, I'm waiting for the authors to get back. Seems like some fair points
there.

Liz: This will stay in IESG Evaluation; do you want it in Revised I-D Needed?

Paul: Yeah, that's a good idea.

 o draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-18  - IETF stream
   Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
   Egress Peer Engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
   Plane (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Jim Guichard

Liz: We have a Discuss on this document; do we want to discuss this today?

Jim: John's not here, and I know there's some email floating around. We just
need to wait on that to get resolved; I don't think it's a big deal and no
reason to discuss it here, I think.

Liz: So this one will stay in IESG Evaluation; do you want this in a substate
of Revised I-D Needed?

Jim: Yes, please.

 o draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-11  - IETF stream
   Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities
   IANA Registry (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Mahesh Jethanandani

Liz: This is the first of the three ipfix documents. There are no Discusses in
the tracker, so unless there's an objection now, this document is approved. I'm
not hearing an objection. Mahesh, is this ready to go as-is or do you want to
keep it in AD Followup for a final look?

Mahesh: AD Followup, please.

 o draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17  - IETF stream
   Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information
   Elements (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Mahesh Jethanandani

Liz: This one has a couple of Discusses; do we want to discuss these now?

Mahesh: The author has been fairly responsive, so unless there's something I
need to bring up again, it should be okay.

Paul: I guess I'm a little confused about those statements. It deprecates
certain keywords in the registry but it doesn't really say…those keywords must
have been defined by a previous RFC so that RFC should be updated -- right?

Mahesh: Right. If it is being defined in some other RFC that should definitely
be updated. I'll follow up with the authors.

Roman: Mahesh, I saw that the authors responded to me. I need to take a look at
what they wrote. I think there's a PR in flight.

Mahesh: Okay.

Liz: It sounds like this one might be Revised I-D Needed?

Mahesh: Yes.

Liz: Great. This one is staying in IESG Evaluation:: Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-13  - IETF stream
   Export of UDP Options Information in IP Flow Information Export
   (IPFIX) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Mahesh Jethanandani

Liz: Our third ipfix document also has a Discuss; do we want to discuss this
one?

Mahesh: It's the same comment for this; Roman, I believe he responded to your
Discuss.

Roman: I need to take a look; I don't know if I got a response across both
documents. I think it's an easy fix.

Zahed: I think a couple of us raised the question is this the right time to go
out with this UDP option right now? I can give an update on the udp-options
document, which is progressing. Even if the fundamental thing won't be
different from what's in the document, but the registry is not created. Should
we just wait?

Eric V: This was similar to documents about a year ago. The document was
approved, like we could approve this one, but it was in AD Followup for more
than a year because I was waiting for another document. I would suggest you do
the same.

Zahed: This is fine, I just wanted to discuss that. I didn't block it because I
don't see unsafe things; the way the authors answered my question isn't that
different. Perhaps we could approve this and leave it in AD Followup for a
while.

Mahesh: I believe that question did come up, whether we should block on the
other draft or not. I think there was consensus that this document should wait
for the other one to progress.

Eric V: If I remember correctly, the main reason why udp-options are in a
different draft is just for this reason, so we can delay this one while not
blocking the other. That's what I remember from the OPSAWG discussion.

Deb: The other document is a normative reference, right?

Eric V: It will not be published; it's a blocking cluster.

Deb: Holding it in AD Followup is the way to go; that way, if you need to make
changes to this one, you can.

Mahesh: Okay.

Liz: Revised I-D Needed?

Mahesh: Correct.

Liz: This one is staying in IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-12  - IETF stream
   YANG Data Model for Maximum SID Depth Types and MPLS Maximum SID
   Depth (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Jim Guichard

Liz: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now,
this is approved.

Jim: Can you put this in AD Followup, please?

Liz: Of course; this will be Approved, Announcement to be Sent::AD Followup and
you can let us know when that's ready.

2.1.2 Returning items

 NONE

2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items

 NONE

2.2.2 Returning items

 NONE

2.3 Status changes
2.3.1 New items

 NONE

2.3.2 Returning items

 NONE

3. Document actions
3.1 WG submissions
3.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-05  - IETF stream
   Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space (Informational)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Liz: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now,
this is approved.

Warren: There are no Discusses and the authors incorporated all the feedback,
so I think this is good to go. Also I'll point out, I have six yeses!

Liz: Is this really ready to go?

Warren: Yes.

Liz: Great; then no AD Followup, we'll just approve this and send the
announcement.

 o draft-ietf-madinas-mac-address-randomization-14  - IETF stream
   Randomized and Changing MAC Address State of Affairs (Informational)
   Token: Eric Vyncke

Liz: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now,
this is approved.

Eric V: Thank you for all the reviews. Approved, Revised I-D Needed; a couple
of comments are yet to be done.

Liz: Great; this one is Approved, Announcement to be Sent::Revised I-D Needed.

Eric V: And for your information, I talked to the authors and they will make a
revised I-D tomorrow which I will submit manually.

3.1.2 Returning items

 NONE

3.2 Individual submissions via AD
3.2.1 New items

 NONE

3.2.2 Returning items

 NONE

3.3 Status changes
3.3.1 New items

 NONE

3.3.2 Returning items

 NONE

3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents
3.4.1 New items

 NONE

3.4.2 Returning items

 NONE

3.4.3 For action

 o conflict-review-li-arch-sat-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-li-arch-sat
     draft-li-arch-sat-07
     A Routing Architecture for Satellite Networks (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Liz: Do we have a volunteer to take on this conflict review?

Roman: Just a process note for the new ADs, when these conflict reviews come up
we don't do hard assignments; are folks interested in the topic, do folks know
something about the topic, or is the topic adjacent to the area you're
overseeing? So I read routing architecture, which smells like Routing. Gunter,
Jim?

Jim: We've kind of had a discussion about this anyway. I'll take this one.

Roman: I appreciate it, thanks.

Zahed: Jim, while you review that, I'd really like to know why this is being
published in the ISE. Something that pops up often in the IETF, we have side
meetings on satellite networks and these things, and it already looks like a
conflict from the title, not knowing the details.

Jim: John and Gunter and I had a discussion. The main reason was it was
presented in the RTGWG, and there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm to take it on.
It's not going to get adopted in any of the RTG groups so the suggestion was to
take it as an independent submission. Whether that was the right decision, we
can argue, but that was the suggestion we pushed back with.

Gunter: Yes, as I recall.

Paul: It's going to be a tricky conflict review then.

Eric V: Erik Kline is doing a lot of things here, and his employer works in
satellites. He may be interested, but as far as I know he's not on the call.

Zahed: There are a number of side meetings at the last couple of IETFs; TVR,
DTN, and all these things. This will be tricky and I'd like to understand more
why it should still be in the ISE.

Jim: I know Alvaro has been doing some stuff in the IAB on satellite. This will
be the first conflict review I've done so I'm not actually sure what to do
here; I may reach out to some of you folks to guide me in the right direction,
but I'm happy to take it on and it's certainly in the routing area.

Paul: There was also a DNS document that tried to do some interplanetary DNS
that feels in the same scope? Maybe they should just get a WG?

Tommy: One comment with regards to ISE stuff; we will have the ISOPEN session
and one of the things that would be in scope there is what do we generally want
to do with documents that are rejected by a WG, or not adopted yet; is it the
right thing to bounce them to the ISE and publish them anyway or do we want to
do something different?

Warren: What I've been doing specifically for the WG not wanting to adopt it, I
ask the chairs to send email to the WG saying we're planning on sending this to
the ISE, and then I include that note to the ISE to make it clear that the WG
didn't think it was a bad idea, they just said it's not really in scope or we
don't really care. There's a difference between 'we don't care' and 'we think
this is the worst idea ever.'

Jim: I think the issue with this one is that the author has made a lot of
assumptions on satellite networking because he can't get any feedback from
folks that actually do satellite networking. I think the WG felt that it's all
well and good to have an arch document but if it's based on false assumptions,
why are we doing it? That was one of the reasons why Alvaro took this up in the
IAB. I think what I'll do is work with Alvaro on this. His plan is to try to
get engagement with the standards organizations involved in satellite
networking, and then we can make some determination as to whether there's any
work here for the IETF.

Roman: Jim, I think you have a good plan and I'm thrilled everyone is excited
to give you feedback. Let's not do the conflict review here on the call, and we
can discuss again after you've had a chance to think about it.

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

 NONE

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

 NONE

4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

 NONE

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

 NONE

5. IAB news we can use

Roman: I think the high-order bit is what Tommy already mentioned; there's
going to be an open session on Friday to talk about the ISE.

Tommy: We also sent out our call for papers on the AI Opt-Out workshop that
will be happening later this year, so if people are interested in that they can
submit papers.

Zahed: I was excited to see this help desk thing. Any more information? I'm
pretty sure this isn't a dispatch, it's like pre-help to do something with
ideas?

Tommy: It's not necessarily even just for newcomers, if you're an old-timer but
you still have new work you're trying to get started with. That will be one of
the desks in the main registration area; right now we're working on finalizing
which times those will be staffed. It's looking like Monday afternoon and
Thursday afternoon.

Zahed: It's a good idea but maybe when you announce it's a good idea to
differentiate between this, HotRFC, dispatch, all the other things we do so
it's not misunderstood.

Tommy: Yes.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1367328] Designated experts for RFC 9575 (DRIP Entity Tag (DET)
Authentication Formats and Protocols for Broadcast Remote Identification (RID))
(IANA)

6.2 [IANA #1367528] Designated experts for RFC 9606, "DNS Resolver Information"
(IANA)

Liz: These first two are the two new action items for Eric V. We removed the
names from the second one so these are both just actions for you.

Eric V: Perfect, thank you.

6.3 [IANA #1366745] renewing early allocations for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn
(IANA)

Liz: Zahed, this is one of yours; do you have any status updates or anything to
say on this renewal?

Zahed: Not really. This is something that's already been there and just needs a
renewal. I don't think there's anything else to mention.

Liz: Are there any objections to approving this renewal? I'm not hearing any,
so we'll call this renewed and send that official note to IANA.

6.4 IETF 123 Important Dates (Secretariat)

Liz: These are all standard dates; the only potential issue is that the
preliminary agenda on June 20 means that the agenda deconfliction telechat
would be on June 19, which is a holiday for some people in the US but not
everybody. That's not necessarily a problem we need to solve now since it's a
year in advance, but just a heads up that for whoever is still on the IESG next
year, we'll need to figure this out. Does anyone have any comments or
questions? Okay, then we'll go ahead and call these approved and for those of
you who are still around next year, I'll be reminding you about the Juneteenth
date.

6.5 Systers outreach at 120 (Secretariat)

Liz: I wanted to remind you about Systers as well. We talked about providing a
list of upcoming leadership opportunities in WGs like chair or secretary roles.
Does anyone have any of those? Also, Carolina would like someone to come to the
Monday morning Systers breakfast to bring that list and talk about those
opportunities, but since the IESG has a breakfast meeting at the same time, it
can't be any of you, so we need someone else familiar with leadership.
Wondering both if you are working on those lists of opportunities and if you
have ideas for who would be a good person to talk to the Systers.

Roman: Does that have to be on Monday, or can it be the Thursday meeting?

Liz: I can ask. For a little bit of background, Carolina was thinking of
changing the lunch to something else, and just in the last few days we decided
to stick with the lunch so things were a bit up in the air. I can check with
her about someone coming to the lunch instead of the breakfast.

Roman: I'm happy to go, but I need the list.

Deb: I can do the Thursday lunch; it's just the Monday that's problematic. I
was going to to go the lunch anyway. But there does need to be a list.

Liz: Okay. I'll talk to Carolina about Thursday, but that's kind of Part 2. Do
we have a Part 1, a list?

Roman: I think we should start a thread to collect that information. We need
each of the individual areas to speak up.

Deb: We moved a lot of WG chairs around last time, so it's unlikely we're going
to move a ton of chairs around this time. Between me and Orie I think half the
SEC chairs changed last cycle. I don't know how many new people we're going to
need.

Eric V: There are also some WG-forming BOFs that will require chairs when they
become WGs.

Roman: Why don't we take a look at whether we have openings to share.

Liz: Deb and Roman, maybe if we don't have a specific list you could give a
pitch on general leadership opportunities.

Roman: That's what I was thinking too.

6.6 [IANA #1366921] Designated experts for RFC 9577 (The Privacy Pass HTTP
Authentication Scheme) (Paul Wouters)

Liz: This is a new management item to approve the designated experts we talked
about at the top of the call. Paul has identified Tommy Pauly and Christopher
Wood as the designated experts for this registry; any objection to approving
them? Okay, they are approved and we'll send that official note to IANA and
close out that action item for Paul.

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

Jim: Quick clarification, going back to the conflict review. What's the typical
expectation on timeframe for those, given the IETF week coming up?

Roman: Generally speaking, the other streams would probably appreciate about a
month, but given the meeting I think you should not feel you need to make it
happen for that first telechat afterwards. If you could get it for the telechat
later in August that would be consistent with prior support.

Jim: Perfect, thank you.

Roman: Just a reminder that we need to figure out what we're doing for the IESG
meetings at 120 and the joint IESG meeting. Please go in the wiki and add items
to the parking lot area at the top of the page and I'll slot them in. One I
added earlier is that IANA would like to talk to us about a 7120bis.

Paul: Can we do a short executive session?

7.1 Executive Session