Minutes
IAB Teleconference
13 May 2003, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm US EST
Leslie Daigle — IAB Chair
Bernard Aboba
Harald Alvestrand — IETF/IESG Chair
Rob Austein
Patrik Fältström
Sally Floyd
Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
Mark Handley
Geoff Huston
Charlie Kaufman
James Kempf
Eric Rescorla
Mike St. Johns
Bert Wijnen — Liaison from the IESG
Vern Paxson — IRTF Chair
Joyce Reynolds — Liaison from the RFC Editor
Lynn St. Amour — Liaison from ISOC
Tuesday, 10 June 2003, 4:00 EST.
Rollcall, Agenda Bash and Previous Minutes
Minutes of the 8 April Teleconference were approved.
IESG
The IESG liaison to the IAB is Bert Wijnen.
An experiment has commenced in the area of provision of RT (a ticketing system) support to any WG that wants it. Levels of interest in this activity are being assessed.
The IESG is also reviewing aspects of the WG decision making process in the area of means of resolving potential deadlock situations.
IRTF
The IRTF chair reported receiving a number of concerns and complaints about the state of ASRG, and is looking into modifying the RG management to address them.
RFC Editor
There has recently been a discussion between the IESG and RFC Editor on the issue of when to publish documents as RFCs that have been rejected by working groups. There is a concern that document authors will take rejected drafts from the working groups and submit them directly to the RFC Editor as individual submissions. A question has arisen whether these documents should be published before the working group publishes its output.
The RFC Editor has proposed to the IESG that the IESG may request that publication of an individual submission may be delayed by six months by sending RFC Editor a “Do Not Publish” (DNP) note containing a description of the risks posed by the document. (The RFC Editor would like to understand the specifics of the request.)
The author will receive a note including the IESG DNP message and an explanation that the draft may be resubmitted in six months. The RFC Editor feels that a timed delay is important since some working groups do not complete their work. When the draft is re-submitted, the IESG may request one additional six month delay if there is sufficient reason to believe the working group will deliver it’s output in that time.
This discussion is still in progress.
2. The IESG’s I-D nits document
The IESG is reviewing the I-D nits document. The IESG requested that the RFC Editor provide a review and feedback. Bert Wijnen has been sorting the nits into three categories:
1. “clerical” nits which will result in a wg draft being rejected before AD review. E.g., missing security considerations.
2. Nits which the AD review should flag and reject before IESG review.
3. Nits which can be resolved somewhat painlessly by the RFC Editor (e.g., excessive line length in body text).The RFC Editor conveyed to Bert Wijnen that it is willing and able to handle all the formatting and editorial nits. The RFC Editor doe not feel that documents should be held up overly long for reasons of formatting, especially since the RFC Editor will be fixing the formatting, anyway. The RFC Editor agrees that the best thing for all involved is to ensure that the semantic nits (e.g., abstract, normative/informative references, security considerations, etc.) are best addressed early on to ensure accurate review and group consensus. The RFC Editor also agrees that it is reasonable to require splitting references between normative and informative on all IESG-reviewed Informational documents.
In all cases, WG chairs and authors will be expected to have their documents nit-free before submission. The objective of this activity is to decide when to bounce a document that fails a nit check. The desire is to set a fairly high bar with the WG chairs to improve the quality of documents hitting the IESG.
3. New RFC Series/Category and Documented Appeals Process for DNPs
The RFC Editor is currently discussing with the IESG the possibility of a new series/category for working group Informational documents such as requirements, architecture, and framework documents, and a documented appeals process for DNPs.
ISOC
ISOC has been following up on Item # 8 from the IAB Meetings during the March 2003 IETF concerning the US Homeland Security Office activities
Meetings have taken place with representative of this office, as well as comparable meetings with officials within Europe.
RSSAC
The RSSAC has been discussing “glue” RRset maintenance and policy issues (mostly about how active a role ICANN should play about making sure that the glue RRset stays in sync with the authoritative RRset in the child zone. The questions include: how much checking should be undertaken?, Should there be tracking of changes to the authoritative RRset that the child zone admin hasn’t directly reported to ICANN?
The IAB considered a proposal relating to the manner of interaction with non-international bodies. The IAB noted that while this was a functional “liaison role”, there was some consideration relating a “liaison” to a degree of perception of some level of peer status between liaising bodies, and the potential for further liaisons in a wide spectrum of various national and regional activities. Further consideration of this topic is to be scheduled for the next IAB meeting.
The IAB decided to invite the CEO of ICANN to meet with the IAB on Thursday of the IETF week.
The IAB considered a proposal to hold an open meeting to undertake enumeration of the class of operational scenarios for which there is perceived to be a role for scoped, or otherwise constrained address architectures. At this stage the proposed outputs from this activity are intended to be an enumeration of the issues raised in the open meeting, followed by a subsequent architectural analysis of these issues as a means of assisting the IETF to progress with the topic of various forms of constrained address architecture proposals.
The mid-month IAB action item review has not been effective, and this will not be continued. The mid-month informal telechats were considered to be effective, and further calls will be scheduled using a SIP-based conferencing system.
IAB members were requested to provide periodic summaries of the current status and major issues being faced by those working groups in which they were actively tracking.
None
[Dec-02]
current
Status: James Kempf to draft a note on the topic of architectural issues relating to notification mechanisms. Lisa Dusseault to assist.
+ James to review and revise initial draft provided by Lisa
[Feb-03]
current
Status: Followup actions after meeting with US DoC
* DNS and IDN Document
Rob Austein, Patrik Faltstrom
[Feb-03]
current
Status: Coordinate IETF document between Ads and WGs
+ Revise as per drafted introduction and framework
[Mar-03]
current
Status: Revisit workshops, and reconsider this along the lines of approach, topic, and logistics.
+ DOS attack workshop (below).
+ Other topics/approaches to consider?
[Mar-03]
current
Status: Generate a survey for the WG chairs to come up with a classification matrix to identify particular issues relating to the interaction of their WG activities and security considerations
+ Prepare classification matrix
[Mar-03]
current
Status: Initial scoping activity: a taxonomy paper on the various forms of attack. Also look at the role of a workshop and the potential players.
+ Taxonomy document being prepared
[May-03]
current
Status: Circulate Harald’s formulation of the constrained address architecture issue to the IAB
* WG Status
All
[May-03]
current
Status: Provide the IAB with periodic summaries of the current status of those working groups that they actively follow.
[Feb-03]
closed
Status: Draft response to ICANN referencing IETF role and document preparation
* ICANN CRADA report
Geoff Huston
[Apr-03]
closed
Status: Note to ICANN from the IAB (as TLG) indicating that the IAB understands that a CRADA report on the root nameservers has been prepared, and that the IAB is under the impression that there is a substantive component of the report devoted to technical aspects of this activity. The IAB is willing to undertake a technical review of this report if so desired by ICANN under the terms of the activities encompassed by the technical liaison activity with ICANN
* IAB Conf calls using SIP
Geoff Huston
[Apr-03]
closed
Status: Get in touch with the SIP gateway provider to see if IAB requirements can be met for a trial call in May
* HSSP
Mike St Johns
[Apr-03]
closed
Status: Contact Ran to followup on briefing proposal.
* HSSP
Leslie Daigle
[Apr-03]
closed
Status: Contact HSSP chair and nominate a member / observer to the Panel Steering Committee
+ Ran Aktinson has been nominated as an IETF Liaison
[Apr-03]
closed
Status: Contact GGF chair and discuss potential liaison arrangements
+ proposed liaison arrangements
[Apr-03]
closed
Status: Draft a note asking the RIRs what amount of consideration has taken place with respect to the PA / PI space issues with respect to IPv6
+ note ready to send
draft-iab-sec-cons-03.txt
Eric Rescorla
[May-01]
current
Status: RFC Editor (submitted 13-Feb – Author 48 hours)
* Security Mechanisms for the Internet
draft-iab-secmech-02.txt
Charlie Kaufman, Steve Bellovin
[May-01]
current
Status: Revising
1. (current) draft published
2. (next) incorporate comment into final draft
draft-iab-auth-mech-00.txt
Eric Rescorla
[Apr-02]
current
Status: Editing
1. (current) Complete template section
2. (next) IETF call for input
draft-iab-e2e-futures-02.txt
James Kempf, Rob Austein
[Jul-02]
current
Status: Editing
1. (current) send pointer to the draft to the e2e interest list
draft-iab-nm-workshop-02.txt
Rob Austein
[Oct-02]
current
Status: RFC Editor – submitted 16 April
* Internationalized Resource Identifiers
draft-iab-char-rep-00.txt
Leslie Daigle
[Nov-02]
current
Status: Drafting
1. (current) Leslie to review the draft
draft-iab-service-considerations-00.txt
Mike St Johns, Geoff Huston
[Nov-02]
current
Status: Editing
1. (current) draft published
2. (next) revise as per comment received
[Nov-02]
current
Status: Drafting
1. (current) Document the use of transport control and congestion detection and avoidance for VOIP applications
2. (next) Sally – drafting
draft-iab-iana-01.txt
Geoff Huston
[Nov-02]
current
Status: Editing
1. (current) IAB review of -02 draft
2. (next) publish 02 draft
draft-iab-isocbot-00.txt
Leslie Daigle
[Nov-02]
current
Status: Editing
1. (current) review and revise following completion of 2003 election process
[Jul-02]
current
Status: Editing
1. (current) Document the need for funding for further research for the Internet, including documenting important topics for research.
2. (next) The document under development covers the need for research in general and identifies specific areas of research.
3. (next) Sally – feedback appreciated – there are as yet unwritten sections and assistance will be coopted
4. (next) Bernard – wireless research is underfunded – will send mail
5. (next) Sally – there is a commented out section referencing Rob on DNS
6. (next) Patrik to write section on issues around address scoping and related routing and application interactions
http://www.iab.org/connexions.html
All
[Mar-03]
current
Status: IAB review – proposed updates requested
1. (current) active
[Mar-03]
current
Status: drafting
1. (current) circulate to IAB of a draft indicating progress to date with this document
[May-03]
current
Status: drafting
1. (current) Document the need for funding for further research for the Internet, including documenting important topics for research relating to operational activities
2. (next) Document focusing on operational concerns.
These minutes were prepared by Geoff Huston; comments should be sent to iab-execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: http://www.iab.org/documents/IABmins/
The IAB Web page is at http://www.iab.org