Narrative Minutes interim-2024-iesg-27: Thu 15:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2024-iesg-27-202412191500-00

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2024-12-19 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 (DHS CISA) / Security Area
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
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
Zaheduzzaman (Zahed) Sarker (Nokia) / Web and Internet Transport Area
David Schinazi (Google) / IAB Liaison
John Scudder (Juniper) / Routing 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
---------------------------------
Jay Daley / IETF Executive Director
Mahesh Jethanandani (Arrcus) / Operations and Management Area
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Tommy Pauly (Apple) / IAB Chair

OBSERVERS
---------------------------------
Alper Demir
Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

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

Roman: Do we have a slot to finish the NomCom confirmation?

Liz: We do not, but we can add that at the end.

Roman: Please do, thank you.

Gunter: I had one draft that was balloted on the previous telechat and one of
the informal references became a normative reference and it's a downref. I
think we need to approve this as the IESG.

Liz: Okay. Can you put the name of that draft into the chat so we make sure we
talk about the right thing?

Gunter: Yes.

Roman: I know the agenda item says exec session, appeal, but there are two
appeals to discuss -- I don't know whether we want to separate that or make it
plural.

Liz: At the last telechat we'd decided to talk about the first appeal at the
first telechat in January. But we can talk about it today too if you want.

Roman: Oh, okay. I'd forgotten that.

Francesca: One more thing, can we add a management item to create a team to
read all the feedback about alldispatch? It was initially on an informal but I
moved it. We don't need to discuss the whole thing, but it would be good to
decide on a couple of people to go through the feedback.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Liz: Any objection to the minutes from the December 5 telechat being approved?
I'm hearing no objection, so those are approved and we'll get them published in
the public archive. Does anyone have any objection to the narrative minutes
from the December 5 telechat being approved? I'm hearing no objection there
either, so those are approved and we'll get them published in the public
archive as well.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

   * DESIGNATED EXPERTS NEEDED

     o Murray Kucherawy to find designated experts for RFC 9559 (Matroska
       Media Container Format Specification) [IANA #1385324].

Murray: That's in progress. I reached out to the WG and authors to ask for
volunteers or nominees and forgot to check this morning.

     o Gunter Van de Velde to find designated experts for RFC 9681 (IS-IS
       Fast Flooding)[IANA #1403302].

Gunter: I have the usual suspects for this one. I added the exact details in
the chat just now.

Liz: Great, then we can mark this as provisionally approved for now and make a
new management item for the end of the telechat to approve those names.

     o Paul Wouters to find designated experts for RFC 9668
       (EDHOC Authentication Credential Types)[IANA #1401194].

Paul: I'm waiting on one more for this one. In progress.

   * OPEN ACTION ITEMS

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

Murray: First thing in the new year.

     o Roman Danyliw to work on adding a checkbox to the meeting
       registration system asking people to identify they are willing to
       serve as WG chair.
     o Roman Danyliw to prepare status changes or another way forward
       for the handful of obsoleted documents Pete Resnick emailed the
       IESG about on 2 Nov 2024.
     o Roman Danyliw to take a look at Datatracker documentation of
       document states and update as needed.
     o Roman Danyliw to work with Secretariat to update non-wg list
       guidelines webpage.

Roman: All of these are for me and in progress. The one I want to call out is
the second one about preparing status changes. Orie, did you drop this? Isn't
some of this being Last Called already?

Orie: Francesca took the action on that.

Francesca: I started a Last Call and there are already comments.

Roman: I think we can just remove this action item then. Francesca, thank you
for running with it.

Liz: Francesca, do you want us to replace this action item with an item for
you, or are you just handling this?

Francesca: We can remove it from the action item list; I'll just follow it as
normal.

     o IESG to decide whether we are going to collectively agree to opt in
       to the RPC auth 48 Github experiment if authors are part of the
       github experiment.

Roman: Let's talk about this on an informal in 2025.

2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items

 o draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-17  - IETF stream
   Common YANG Data Types (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Mahesh Jethanandani

Liz: We have a couple of Discusses in the tracker here, but Mahesh isn't with
us. Is there anything we want to discuss now without Mahesh?

Eric V: I don't think so. My Discuss is pretty easy to resolve

Liz: Okay, then we'll just keep this in IESG Evaluation and put it in AD
Followup so Mahesh can take it from there when he's back.

Eric V: I think it will probably need a revised I-D.

Roman: Let's just put it in AD Followup. [Mahesh] can decide.

 o draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-18  - IETF stream
   BGP Extensions for BIER (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Gunter Van de Velde

Liz: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now,
this one is approved. Okay, this is approved. Gunter, is this ready to go?

Gunter: No, AD Followup please. Some last minute comments were raised and I
want to make sure those points are addressed. Thanks everyone for the reviews.

Liz: Okay, then this is Approved, Announcement to be Sent, AD Followup.

 o draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-17  - IETF stream
   Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mapping for DNS Time-To-Live
   (TTL) values (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Orie Steele

Liz: We have a couple of Discusses here; do we need to discuss this now?

Orie: No. At least from my side. Thank you for everyone who's commented on
this. I've seen the authors are already replying. It's definitely Revised I-D
Needed.

Murray: I saw Gavin's reply to me this morning. Just so you know, I'm not
totally satisfied with the answer. There are two things, one he says it's a
SHOULD because blah blah blah…then, add blah blah blah to the document so I
don't have to ask what this means. But the second thing is I don't think he's
describing an interoperability problem and I intend to push back on that a
little more.

John: Murray, before you push, you might want to check his reply to my comment.
I think he got the picture.

Murray: Okay, great.

Eric V: About my Discuss, Gavin asked me if we do this and this, will it fix
your Discuss, and I said yes, but I haven't seen the revised I-D yet. So I'm
waiting, but the problem is solved.

Orie: That's on me, I directed him to wait to gather all the feedback so that
he wouldn't be shipping a new draft right before the telechat.

Eric V: A matter of taste, no problem.

Liz: Okay, so this document is staying in IESG Evaluation :: Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-28  - IETF stream
   A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications
   Protocol (PCEP) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Gunter Van de Velde

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

Gunter: No, I don't think it makes sense. There's some good communication going
on between the author and Mahesh that's progressing well. At the same time I do
have a small process question. I'm wondering if Yang modeling decisions and
model style is a reason for raising a Discuss. I was looking at the criteria
for Discusses and there's not really anything in there. Maybe something to look
into going forward, because it's a little open right now. That being said, this
will be solved one way or the other. Thank you for the many good reviews and
feedback here, which I never expect on a Yang document.

Liz: Gunter, is this one going to need a revised I-D?

Gunter: For sure.

Liz: Okay, so this document is staying in IESG Evaluation :: Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-15  - IETF stream
   Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- Certificate Management
   Protocol (CMP) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Deb Cooley

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

Deb: I don't think so. It's a pretty straightforward Discuss and we'll let the
authors sort it out. I actually made the same comment to them before we started
this process, so I'm happy to have backup and somebody agreeing with me.

Liz: Is this one going to require a revised I-D?

Deb: I think so.

Liz: Okay, so this document is staying in IESG Evaluation :: Revised I-D Needed.

 o draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-09  - IETF stream
   Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure -- HTTP Transfer for the
   Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) (Proposed Standard)
   Token: Deb Cooley

Liz: There are no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now,
this one is approved. Okay, this is approved. Deb, is it ready to go?

Deb: Can we put it in Revised I-D Needed, please?

Liz: We sure can. This will be Approved, Announcement to be Sent :: Revised I-D
Needed.

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-madinas-use-cases-18  - IETF stream
   Randomized and Changing MAC Address: Context, Network Impacts, and
   Use Cases (Informational)
   Token: Eric Vyncke

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

Eric V: Let's put it in AD Followup. I just read John's comments and they make
sense. I think the author is right though, because they don't want "temporary"
in this change, but for duration, I think it's "temporal." It's a key that
stays for let's say five seconds, or five minutes or five hours. Do we say
"temporary," or "temporal?"

John: We can take it offline. It may be true that "temporal" is sort of
accepted industry jargon, but if you look at a dictionary, it doesn't line up
super well.

Erik K: Is "ephemeral" better?

Eric V: That's short duration though, right? Anyway, let's continue offline
indeed. AD Followup for sure.

Liz: Okay, then this one is Approved, Announcement to be Sent :: AD Followup.

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

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

 NONE

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

 o AI Preferences (aipref)

Liz: This is for the WIT area, with Zahed as AD, and there are no blocking
comments. Does anyone have any final objections to the creation of this WG?

Murray: Can I ask one question? I have no objection to this going forward, but
in the previous round, someone brought up the point that this text is just
about preferences and we were looking for something stronger than that. Where
did that land?

Zahed: The current scope is about preferences, and how do you convey those
preferences. There's not that much discussion about something stronger than
that. You also have to spell out what is stronger than that. There are some
other people who brought up that if someone says I'm an AI agent and I want to
cull your document for some kind of learning, then there might be some
questions like who are you and how to make sure this is the agent it is. Those
are out of scope for right now. I have not seen any kind of interest from the
proponents to work on that. It was more of a  descriptive vocabulary and a way
to express that vocabulary to the agents. That's the scope. But I do see in the
future we can enhance the charter and it can land on the same thing. It could
be more generic than just AI preference.

Murray: I thought it was a good point that we're talking about privacy matters
here. Preference seems like the kind of thing [where someone could say] I
understand your preference but I'm going to ignore it and do what I want to do.
That seems like, I guess I was hoping for a little more than that. But that's
not enough to object, and I don't want to take up more time.

Zahed: The original name was ai-control, but that also has questions about who
and what is control here. So we changed it to preference.

Erik K: I second Paul's suggestion here for policy.

Zahed: So you're saying ai-policy?  Is this like a bike shed, or do you
actually think this is more expressive? If it's bikeshedding, let's skip that.
If it's philosophically or logically not making sense then we can think about
renaming it. The question then would be then, the moment you go into the
control and policy level thing there should be some kind of policy controller
entity and I don't understand how you do that.

Paul: I'm not sure if you would need that. Similar to how robots.txt is like
it's defining your policy, but there's nothing there to enforce or control or
do anything, right? It's just saying my policy is don't screw with me, and then
if you do, it's not an IETF concern, it's a legal concern.

Murray: That's no different than what we're doing here.

Zahed: I think the philosophy behind this is that it's what my preference would
be.

Erik K: Do people talk about robots.txt as a preference, that's like the
website's preference? Or do you refer to it as the website's policy?

Murray: I guess as language goes it's both, right? You're expressing what you
think is your policy, but there's no actual obligation for anyone to pay
attention to what you're advertising.

Zahed: I can reopen this naming discussion again, because I need to appoint
chairs anyway. Is that doable?

Murray: I think we're trying to find the record of how many times we can rename
a WG before it gets started.

Cindy: I think that number is like four. Please don't try to beat it. It's very
annoying [to change names]; please don't if you can avoid it.

Zahed: To be serious, do you really think this will make a huge difference with
this name change? If that's the case I'm willing to take this discussion to the
mailing list and see.

Murray: I think what I'm going for here is that I don't want to incorrectly
sell what this is claiming to do. That's all I'm trying to be careful about,
I'm not insisting on anything. I just wanted to pull on that thread one more
time.

Zahed: Are you satisfied with this name and the charter, what it's trying to do?

Murray: Let me put it this way. I do not have a better suggestion that I want
to push for.

Zahed: Okay. And Paul, you won't be super unhappy if it's not ai-policy?

Paul: That's fine.

Zahed: Thank you. Then we approve this one and I still need to find chairs. As
I wrote in the chat, if you have any suggestions, I'd like to see if you think
there are people willing to chair. I'd like to combine some experience and some
newbies, so suggestions are welcome.

Deb: You do want a new chair for this?

Zahed: Yes. I need someone who understands this charter and knows what they're
talking about. Anybody who was involved in robots.txt would be a good candidate.

Paul: That mostly happened outside the IETF, right?

Zahed: One of the reasons I was happy to form this WG is that it will bring in
completely new people to join this WG, not just the regular IETFers. That will
definitely include some new blood, but they're completely unfamiliar with IETF
processes and I'm not sure they're a good fit [for chair], so we need somebody
who has IETF knowledge who can help co-chairing with some expert.

Roman: Why don't we take that offline?

Liz: For now, we can approve this charter pending the addition of the chairs,
but we can't actually send out the WG action announcement until we have chairs
and all those pieces. So for now the action will stay with you, Zahed, and you
can let us know when you have all the pieces ready for us.

Zahed: I'll do that. Thank you.

Murray: One quick suggestion on who you might get for chair, reach out to the
authors of robot.txt.

4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

 o Protocols for IP Multicast (pim)

Liz: This is in the Routing area and Gunter is the AD. There are no blocking
comments; are there any objections to sending this out for external review? I'm
not hearing any objections, so let's go ahead. Gunter, is this ready to go, or
do you want more time with it?

Gunter: It's ready to go.

Liz: Perfect, so we'll go ahead and send out that external review announcement
and we'll put it back on the agenda for the next telechat.

 o IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)

Liz: This is in the INT area, with Eric V as AD. There are several comments
here that we can approve this without external review, so are there any
objections now to approving this change without external review?

Eric V: Thank you John for your trick to copy milestones from the existing
charter to the next one. If no one objects, I think we can go.

Liz: I'm not hearing any objections, so we can move ahead. Is this ready to go
as-is?

Eric V: Ready as is.

Liz: Perfect, then we have a second one ready to go and we will send out those
announcements.

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

 NONE

5. IAB news we can use

John: The main thing I had was not from yesterday's meeting but the Wednesday
before that. The IAB was shooting to finish finalizing IESG position
confirmations by yesterday and I don't know if any of you have heard anything
or if they actually managed to do it. That's what they were trying for, and
they had a long executive session yesterday, so there's not much to report on
there.

David: Not a whole lot to add. The confirmation is still ongoing. Either way,
once we send confirmation to the NomCom, and they will then reach out to
candidates. It will probably be a while before anything can be made public.

6. Management issues

6.1 Additional Designated Expert for JOSE Registries (Deb Cooley)

Liz: Deb has named Filip Skokan as an additional designated expert for the JOSE
registries, so he would be a third expert along with Sean Turner and Mike
Jones. Any objections to approving Filip? Okay, I'm not hearing any objections,
so Filip is approved as an additional DE and we will send that official note to
IANA.

6.2 Downref to RFC3985 in draft-ietf-pals-ple-14 (Gunter Van de Velde)

Gunter: This RFC reference was informational before, and based on IESG comments
it was moved to the normative section, so it has to be put in the downref
registry or at least approved by the IESG.

Francesca: It doesn't need to be added to the downref registry, but the downref
needs to be approved by the IESG because it wasn't Last Called. Then it's up to
you to decide if it goes into the downref registry.

Cindy: The document that's being referenced is actually already in the downref
registry from a different document. So my understanding is that because it's
already in the downref registry, it doesn't need to be Last Called.

Francesca: That's great. When I checked I didn't see it.

Cindy: It's 3985, which was a downref for an MPLS document that became 5462.

Francesca: Perfect, then we don't need to do anything. The other reference was
3550?

Gunter: That one was a Standard.

Francesca: Okay, then that's fine. Sorry for the noise.

Liz: Downrefs are confusing. So we're not doing anything about the downref
registry, but we're approving this downref for the document.

Francesca: We don't need to even do that. We can just move on.

Liz: Great. Never mind then.

6.3 ALLDISPATCH Feedback (Francesca Palombini)

Francesca: I started going through the feedback of the experiment. We should
decide what to do with alldispatch now. Also, the alldispatch chairs have
reached out and they're asking about when the IESG will know, because they were
a bit rushed in the last meeting to get the requests for topics out and
everything. We should start the process and maybe even have a timeline for
them. I'd appreciate some help.

Roman: Do we want to commit to the informal the week we get back in January and
worst case, the formal after?

Deb: Jan 9 is a formal.

Paul: We need to know before session requests close.

Liz: Session requests close on January 31. The 9th is a formal, which would be
the first one back. Do we want to shoot for discussing this on the 16th?

Francesca: I expect the events that should follow from now are we decide on the
number of ADs who are willing to review the feedback, then these ADs do their
homework and bring something back to the rest of the IESG. I won't have time to
do anything before the new year. To me it doesn't make sense to have the full
IESG looped in a week after that.

Roman: Why don't we give ourselves a 2 meeting budget and say we can try for
the 9th, and shoot to decide no later than the 16th.

Francesca: Looking at the amount of feedback we have to get through, the 9th
might be a bit optimistic.

Deb: Do you want volunteers to look at it?

Francesca: Yes, I was thinking of a couple of people to look at it.

Deb: I'd be happy to do that, and I can probably do that by the 9th.

Francesca: Anyone else? The threads to look at are linked in the informal
agenda wiki. We have the feedback from the meeting survey but also the previous
meeting surveys and some mail to the list and we should look at all of it.

Roman: Absolutely, I can review as well.

Francesca: So why don't we start the three of us.

Liz: Do you want us to add a management item to the January 9 telechat to check
on progress?

Francesca: Yes please. And I'll reply to the chairs and say we hope to have an
answer mid January.

6.4 Designated Experts for RFC 9681 (Gunter Van de Velde)

Gunter has proposed Hannes Gredler, Les Ginsberg, and Christian Hopps as the
designated experts for this registry. Does anyone have an objection to
approving these three? Not hearing any objection, so they are approved and we
will send the official note to IANA.

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

Eric V: For news, with the almost approval of the MADINAS document, in a couple
of weeks MADINAS will be closed.

6.5 Executive Session: NomCom Confirmation (Roman Danyliw)

[Outside observers dropped from the call. This section contained IESG,
Secretariat, and David Schinazi as IAB liaison.]

[Brief discussion of timeline for NomCom confirmation].

6.5 Executive Session: Appeal (Roman Danyliw)

[David Schinazi as IAB liaison dropped from the call per RFC 3710 guidelines.
Deb Cooley and Paul Wouters as Security ADs dropped from the call. Remaining
IESG members plus Secretariat were present for the executive session
discussion.]