Narrative Minutes interim-2024-iesg-19: Thu 14:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2024-iesg-19-202409191400-00

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2024-09-19 IESG Teleconference

These are not an official record of the meeting.
Narrative Scribe: Jenny Bui, Secretariat

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
Amanda Baber (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
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
Erik Kline (Aalyria Technologies) / Internet Area
Murray Kucherawy (Meta) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Francesca Palombini (Ericsson) / Web and Internet Transport Area
Tommy Pauly (Apple) / IAB Chair
David Schinazi (Google) / IAB Liaison
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing Area
Orie Steele (Transmute) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Gunter Van de Velde (Nokia) / Routing Area
Éric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area
Paul Wouters (Aiven) /  Security Area

REGRETS
---------------------------------
Deb Cooley (Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and
 Infrastructure Security Agency) / Security Area
Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Nokia) / Web and Internet Transport Area
Sabrina Tanamal (ICANN) / IANA Liaison

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
Jeffry Handal
Laura Nugent
Behcet Sarikaya
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Liz: Does anyone want to add anything new to today's agenda?

Roman: I just want to add an administrative management item at the end. I want
to button up the IETF 125 write up.

Liz: Ok. Great, we can add that at the end for you.

Eric: As an executive session, right?

Roman: Let's decide when we get there, based on what you guys want to talk
about.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Liz: Does anyone have objections to the minutes for the September 5
teleconference being approved? So those will be approved, do we want the public
posting of those minutes to be embargoed until the 125 announcement?

Roman: Yes, let's do that. I'm going to launch on Monday with whatever we have
unless everyone tells me we're good to go with the text we have. That's what I
wanted to haggle about at the end.

Liz: These minutes are approved, but they will not be posted yet until there's
an announcement since they do contain an item about the IETF 125 decision.
That's the same for the narrative minutes from September 5. Any objections to
those being approved? No hearing any objections so we'll do the same for that.
The narrative minutes from September 5 are approved, but will not be posted
until that announcement.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

   OUTSTANDING TASKS

        Last updated: September 18, 2024

  * DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED

     o Francesca Palombini to find designated experts for  RFC 9595 (YANG
       Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)) [IANA #1369452].

Francesca: In progress, sorry for no progress there. I'm holding off, but might
need to get the IESG opinion here at some point.

     o Paul Wouters to find designated experts for RFC 9580 (OpenPGP)
       [IANA #1369457].

Liz: We'll mark as provisionally done because we do have an item at the end of
the telechat to approve some names here.

     o Orie Steele to find designated experts for  RFC 9581 (CBOR)
       [IANA #1372387]

Orie: In progres. I did have Henk who's one of the authors on tha document step
forward as a potential designated expert, but i'm in the same sort of category
as Francesca. If anyone has suggestions on how to drum up more support; I
haven't gone to any list directly on this point. I welcome advice from the rest
of the IESG on how to get a larger pool here.

John: Is there some specific reason you don't want to throw them on as a DE?

Francesca: I guess that's better done in executive session.

Roman: Why don't we do an executive session on this topic? I have some bits as
well.

Liz: We'll mark this as in progress for you, Orie.

     o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9605
       (Secure Frame)[IANA #1373060].

Liz: This one is also provisionally done. Murray found some names, so we'll
have some names to approve at the end of the call.

     o Deb Cooley to find designated experts for draft-ietf-gnap-core-
       protocol (GNAP Grant Request Parameters) [IANA #1373603].

Liz:  Deb's not with us today, but i'm pretty sure she knows she has this
action item.

     o Paul Wouters to find designated experts for RFC 9594 (Key
       Provisioning for Group Communication Using Authentication and
       Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)) [IANA #1374729].

Paul: Ok. Thank you.

   * OPEN ACTION ITEMS

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

Paul: In progress.

     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.

Orie: This is in progress. I did a pretty big rewrite incorporating feedback
from Paul and Mahesh. I think Warren added some comments as well, but I like to
ship it. It's hopefully getting close.

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

Liz: I know we talked about this last week, is this still in progress?

Murray: I think it's ready to close out and publish. I can resend the link to
the Slack for the people that want to see it, but the feedback has calmed all
the way down.

Eric: We can give it one week, and we can send it in one week during the
informal.

Liz: Do you want to mark this as done or wait until it actually goes out?

Eric: I prefer to wait.

Murray: Let's leave it up. It doesn't hurt to leave it up one more time.

Liz: We will leave this on the list until that statement goes out.

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

Murray: There are a few feedback points, so this is under discussion and it's
still in progress. Deb had some feedback, Paul had some feedback, so let's go
another round on it.

     o Roman Danyliw to reach out Systers about the value of writing
       recommendation letters to employers.

Roman: In progress.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32  - IETF stream
   A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Liz: There are no discusses so unless there's an objection now, this one is
approved. This one is approved, and since Warren isn't here we'll put this in
AD follow-up for him.

 o draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk-10  - IETF stream
   RADIUS and TLS-PSK (Best Current Practice)
   Token: Paul Wouters

Liz: There are no discusses here either, so unless there's an objection this
one is also approved.

Paul: Put it in AD follow-up please, so I can go through the comments.

Liz: This will be approved announcement to be sent; substate of AD follow-up.
There are also a few down refs. Do you happen to know yet, Paul, if you would
like to add any of these to the downref registry? It's 6614, 7360, and 9257.

Paul: It's probably older protocols that are sort of being obsoleted here, so,
but I'll double check so I'll let you know.

Eric: By the way, Alan was quite responsive, not a surprise but always nice to
see.

Paul: He always is pretty responsive or do you mean in general compared to
other authors?

Eric: Correct, in general.

 o draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header-08  - IETF stream
   The Deprecation HTTP Header Field (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Francesca Palombini

Liz:  There are no discusses here, so unless there's an objection now, this one
is approved.

Francesca: Thank you everyone for the reviews. This has gotten a full ballot
which I was very impressed with so thanks and AD follow-up. I haven't seen the
authors reply to the comments yet, so I want to se the reply first.

Liz: This one will be approved announcement to be sent; AD follow-up.
Francesca, you have a downref as well, should we add 8594 to the downref
registry?

Francesca: Let me check that real quick. I don't think that it needs to go to
the downref right now.

 o draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-03  - IETF stream
   Bundle Protocol Version 7 Administrative Record Types Registry
   (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Erik Kline

Liz: There are no discusses so unless there's an objection right now, this one
is also approved.

Erik: Thank you everybody. I do want to make sure that Eric's comments are
addressed so maybe AD follow-up.

Liz: This will be approved announcement to be sent; AD follow-up.

 o draft-ietf-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256-04  - IETF stream
   Encryption Key Derivation in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
   using HKDF with SHA-256 (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Deb Cooley

Liz: There are no discusses here, so unless there's an objection, this one is
approved. This one is approved, and since Deb isn't here we'll put in this AD
follow-up for her. This is approved announcement to be sent; AD follow-up.

 o draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-11  - IETF stream
   The Concealed HTTP Authentication Scheme (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Francesca Palombini

Liz: There are no discuses so unless there's an objection now, this one is
approved.

Francesca: Thanks everyone for the reviews again. I believe the authors have
answered all the comments, and there is a revision coming so it should go in
revised ID needed. I have looked at the answers, they make sense to me. If any
of the ADs feel like their comments haven't been addressed, please raise it up
quickly so that I don't move it forward.

Liz: This one will be approved announcement to be sent; revised ID needed.

2.1.2 Returning items

 NONE

2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items

 o draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-03  - IETF stream
   IETF Meeting Venue Requirements Review (Best Current Practice)
   Token: Roman Danyliw

Liz: There are no discusses so unless there's an objection now, this one is
approved. We'll call this one approved. Roman, are you waiting for a new
revision or AD follow-up?

Roman: I have not had a chance to read those comments, and so just to keep the
meeting moving, can you just put this in AD follow up?

Liz: This will be approved announcement to be sent; AD follow-up.

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-radext-radiusv11-10  - IETF stream
   RADIUS ALPN and removing MD5 (Experimental)
   Token: Paul Wouters

Liz: There are no discusses so unless there's an objection now, this one is
approved.

Paul: Please put it in AD follow-up for me to read the comments.

Liz: This one is approved announcement to be sent; AD follow-up.

 o draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41  - IETF stream
   Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs: Problems and Mitigation
   Practices (Informational)
   Token: Jim Guichard

Liz: We do have a few discusses here, do we want to discuss them now?

Jim: I don't think so, there are way too many comments.  I have to consider
what to do with the document because it got to like version 40 something and so
I put it forward and having gone through a whole bunch of changes, but
obviously there's a lot of work needed on this document. I need to talk to
people, outside of the the call and figure out what to do with the document at
this point, I think. So unless anybody else wants to say anything, I think, not
much to discuss really.

Liz: I'm not hearing people clamoring to discuss, so we'll just go ahead and
leave this in IESG Evaluation. What do you want the substate to be AD follow-up
or revised ID?

Jim: It's definitely gonna require a revised ID, but I'm not even sure I'm
gonna let it go that far, but, I need to think about it, but put it in revised
ID needed for now, I guess.

Liz: This one is staying in IESG evaluation with a substate of revised ID
needed.

Jim: Just a point on this one though, if I want to return the document to the
working group, do I just go in there and what state do I put it into? I've not
done that before, but I think that's probably what I'm going to do here.

Roman: You put it into ID exists in the working group status.

Jim: I mean there's so many changes and so many comments that it's gonna stay
in my queue forever; they're not small comments either. They're pretty
substantive so so I think probably what I'll do is send it back, but I'm still
pondering.

Erik: If the point of this document is to provide motivation for other protocol
level changes and and refer to this document, I've seen cases where they just
refer to when they have a non normative reference to a document like this and
the other it just stays unpublished.

Jim: Well the biggest issue that I had with the document and I kind of let it
go was that, that they've kind of munched requirements in there. If it was just
a problem statement I wouldn't be as concerned, but there's a lot of comments
saying, well, what about this and what about that? You haven't considered this
and that, and if it's gonna be a requirements document, then those requirements
better be pretty fleshed out and clearly they're not. So that's the main issue
from my perspective, I think.

Liz: Anything else to discuss?

Jim: On this one? I don't think so, let's move on quickly.

 o draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-13  - IETF stream
   Use Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary
   Data (Informational)
   Token: Jim Guichard

Liz: There are no discusses so unless there's an objection now, this one is
approved.

Jim: If you could put this one in AD follow up, please. There's a few comments
that I just want to check before moving it forward. Thanks everyone for the
reviews.

Liz: This one will go to approved announcement to be sent; AD follow-up.

 o draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-06  - IETF stream
   DNSSEC Trust Anchor Publication for the Root Zone (Informational)
   Token: Warren Kumari

Liz: There are no discusses so unless there's an objection now, this one is
approved. Since Warren isn't here today, we'll go ahead and put this in AD
follow-up for him to decide how to proceed.

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

 o conflict-review-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-00
   IETF conflict review for draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token
     draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-23
     Arm's Platform Security Architecture (PSA) Attestation Token
   (ISE: Informational)
   Token: Deb Cooley

Liz: There are no discusses so unless there's an objection now, this conflict
review is ready to go back to the ISE. I'm hearing no objections so I think
this conflict review can go ahead and go back to the ISE. Deb's not here, does
anyone think Deb would want us to just wait for her to sign this off or can we
just go ahead and go back to the ISE?

Roman: I think since the ballot is entirely clear and there's no comments
whatsoever, I think it's fine to go procedurally.

Liz: We will go ahead and send this conflict review message without waiting for
Deb to get back.

3.4.2 Returning items

 NONE

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

 o Getting Ready for Energy-Efficient Networking (green)

Liz: There are no blocking comments, so this ready to go for external review?

Mahesh: There are a few comments that need to be addressed so I'll be working
on them after this meeting at which point then we can send it to external
review.

Liz: We will wait for instructions from you, Mahesh, and you can let us know
when this is ready to go for external review.

 o MODeration PrOceDures (modpod)

Liz: There are no blocking comments here so does anyone have any objections to
this being sent for external review? Roman, is this ready?

Roman: So I want to modify the text just a little bit while the IESG has not
provided comments, there is a whole lot more comments that got added to the
modpod list about how the current text looks and I think I want to refine it
just a little bit to put that out there as a merged kind of set of texts for
the community to provide feedback on. So I'll work on it really quickly in the
next day or two and send it out early next week.

Liz: We will wait for instructions from you, Roman.

Roman: Sorry just to just to go back, so Murray on your point of view, like the
Bill and Ted's kind of reference, that is a little bit of the substantial
discussion that's happening on modpod.

Murray: Just the the fact that, that's in there?

Roman: Yes, about how approachable that text really is. There were a couple of
suggestions I saw on the list. I need to check where we ended up in that.

Murray: Okay I'll go check it out.

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

 o Secure Shell Maintenance (sshm)

Liz: There are no objections, so I think this is approved. Does anyone have any
comments?

Paul: I just want to raise one comment so there is an item in the in the chart
as a milestone that is adopting a certain draft that is probably better not
adopted. So I know Deb put it in there to sort of leave it in there to sort of
deal with it in the future. I'm not sure if someone sort of, how much standing
someone has to come back and say, hey, but this was a milestone in a charter,
now you're not doing it and I'm going to appeal or object. But the milestone is
doing the call for adoption, so it's kind of open anyway, so I was a little on
the fence on what I should think about it.

Eric: Are you thinking about the one which drafted the expired NTRU Prime
something like that?

Paul: Yes, it's the NTRU Prime.

Orie: I mean milestones can be changed as a result of meetings or discussions
or those kinds of considerations, so even if it's a future item that's to do a
call for adoption, the next IETF meeting, could the milestones could be redone
as a result of the group.

Paul: That's why I said it didn't work.

Francesca: Usually it's the responsible AD has the power to do this sort of
changes or or not the power, but is responsible for the milestones so whatever
changes, it gets approved by the AD.

(crosstalk)

Paul: Just one one comment back to Francisca. The the other issue is that of
course this AD is also accused of having a conflict of interest that we already
countered but like there is trouble in the air.

Roman: Paul, we effectively have a procedural kind of thing. Do you want to
change your ballot or what do you want to kind of do here? I mean, the concern
kind of raised, but do you want to document it? Do you want to give that to Deb
to action?

Paul: No, I just wanted some input from others to see. I don't want to change
my ballot.

Francesca:  I think what's really important is the charter text and the
milestones are less important in terms of what the group is supposed to do and
what the group is supposed to get done, and then also we work on items, we want
them to align to a charter and possibly to a milestone. It's better if there is
a milestone, there is not always a milestone, but it's better if there is, but
the opposite is not necessarily true, that meaning that if you do have an item
in the charter that doesn't get worked on because there is no energy or
something that happens all the time. So it's not something that is appealable,
like it was in the milestones and it doesn't get done.

Paul: In this case it's covered by a more vague sounding line in the charter
that like gives us leeway to go one way or the other.

Tommy: You wanted to just putting asking it other way why if there is this
question, why is it important to have it written as a milestone now and not
just let chairs or ADs do it once the group is formed? I mean, nothing stops
you from doing a call for adoption on that document if that's what they think
it's appropriate to do. Are these milestones too specific at this point?

Paul: I think what Deb tried to do was trying to do is postpone some of these
issues until we have a working group formed and make sure that it wouldn't sort
of like interfere with forming the working group. It's a little bit of kicking
the ball down the road, which I think is fine.

Tommy: Are we saying people would object if they didn't see the milestone there?

David: That is a fact. This was a political move due to some very delicate
discussions around this draft where some people would have killed the work more
formation if not the thing wasn't there. So this is a very tactical move to
keep it in here and it doesn't constrain us later.

Roman: So Paul, are you good?

Paul: Yes, i'm good.

Roman: So we're approved, I think.

Liz: With no blocking comments, we are approved. We will just wait for Deb to
know for sure when we're ready to send the announcements on this.

4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

 NONE

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

 o Routing In Fat Trees (rift)

Liz: There is a blocking comment on this approval, do we want to discuss this
now?

Eric: I'm not sure if Jim is still online or not.

Jim: Sorry, I thought I was off mute, but I wasn't. So Eric and I have kind of
pinged each other
 on this through Slack. I think it's both of these blocking points are easily
 addressed. So I guess we're just waiting for the chairs to give some feedback,
 but I think we can address them pretty easily.

Eric: I agree, Jim.

Jim: I guess AD follow-up?

Liz: We can either put this back on the agenda for next telechat or we can just
wait for instructions from you to see how this is going.

Jim: What do you think Eric? I mean I don't think it needs to go through
another telechat, does it? Because I think we can resolve these pretty.

Eric: Absolutely. I mean these are mostly detailed but I don't, they're
important details so then I'm trusting you, right? So I will clear my blocking
immediately.

Jim: Let's get the changes done. I like I said, I mean the SRV6 ones just a
name change because that I know for sure that's what they're talking about
cause there's already a draft on that. The other, point, I think we can, we can
address that pretty quickly. So let's just wait until those changes are made
and then clear the block for after that.

Eric: I would be curious to read the SRV6 in rift.

Liz: Ok. Great, we'll wait for instructions from you, Jim, on how to proceed.

5. IAB news we can use

John: Sorry, I missed the meeting yesterday so I have no news.

Tommy: There's not too much news in general. The AI control workshop is
happening today and tomorrow for people who are interested in that, see what
comes out of that.

Eric: Is it open for us?

Tommy: No, this one's in person and they're doing it like Chatham House Rules.
We'll see reports afterwards.

6. Management issues

6.1 [IANA #1373060] Designated Experts for RFC 9605 (Secure Frame (SFrame):
Lightweight Authenticated Encryption for Real-Time Media) (Murray Kucherawy)

Liz: Murray has identified Richard Barnes and Emad Omara as primary and
secondary experts. Does anyone have any objection to approving them as
designated experts for this registry? Not hearing any objections, so they are
approved and we will get that official note sent to IANA.

6.2 [IANA #1369457] Designated experts for RFC 9580 (OpenPGP) [IANA #1369457]
(Paul Wouters)

Liz:  Paul has identified Daniel Kahn Gillmor, Andrew Gallagher and Heiko
Schäfer as designated experts for this registry. Does anyone have an objection
to approving these names? Not hearing objections so there three are approved
and we'll get that official note sent to IANA.

6.3 Minuting New Participant Program Changes (Secretariat)

Liz: This is just here to record for the minutes that last week on the
informal, the IESG approved the LLC and secretariat to move forward with
planning some expansions to the new participant program to begin at IETF 122,
which to include some technical topics. They  will keep checking in as they are
in the process of developing, but we just wanted to make sure this was on the
record somewhere that they will be trying some new things. For anyone who
missed that, they basically want to just sort of expand the new participant
program to include some more specific tutorials on some sort of basic
technologies rather than just the IETF, so, does anyone have any questions or
comments on this?

6.4 [IANA #1373603] Designated experts for draft-ietf-gnap-core-protocol (GNAP
Grant Request Parameters) (IANA)

Liz: This is a new action for Deb.

6.5 [IANA #1374729] Designated experts for RFC 9594 (Key Provisioning for Group
Communication Using Authentication and Authorization for Constrained
Environments (ACE)) (IANA)

Liz: This is the new one for Paul to find designated experts for RFC 9594.

6.6 [IANA #1373650] renewing early allocation for draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis
(IANA)

Liz: Murray, this is one of your groups. Do you have any comments on renewing
this early allocation?

Murray: No, I support it.

Liz: Then any objections to renewing this early allocation?

Murray: For context, it's past working group last call, it's AD evaluation
right now. It's large, so I'm working on it, but this will be coming before us
before much longer anyway.

Liz: I'm not hearing any objections so we'll consider this early allocation
renewal approved, and we will get that official note sent to IANA.

6.7 Executive Session: IETF 125 (Roman Danyliw)

The management issue was discussed in executive session.

6.8 Executive Session: Designated Experts

The management issue was discussed in executive session.

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