Narrative Minutes

Summarized Agenda for the August 17, 2006 IESG Teleconference

Narrative Scribe: Spencer Dawkins <>

Thanks to Lisa and Brian for corrections.

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Bash the Agenda

Brian would like to talk about Normative References, and we need to talk about the Jefsey appeal before the 6.2 management issue? Ted suggested that we do 6.2 first.

Lisa suggested a discussion on plenaries, but need Leslie involved to move forward - will discuss if Leslie is available.

1.3 Approval of the Minutes

August 3 minutes were approved with no discussion.

No narrative minutes for that call (Brian thinks)

1.4 Review of Action Items

Sam creating mailing list for experiment procedure - will get this out today.

IANA multicast address assignment expert - still in progress.

1.5 Review of Projects

No update this week, although some status stuff is trickling in.

Brian - Wiki is in pretty good state, although status is still "ongoing" - couple of minor issues remaining.

2. Protocol Actions
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"

2.1 WG Submissions
2.1.1 New Item
o draft-ietf-sipping-transc-conf-03.txt
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Conference Bridge Transcoding Model (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
Token: Jon Peterson

Sam is NO-OBJ based on Russ's DISCUSS.

Jon - are Russ's concerns affected by the limitation in the document that there can only be one URI element? Problem is usually for bigger lists, isn't it?

Russ - Jon is closer to this, concern is that two would get out of sync, but this is a normative reference anyway.

Jon - Issues plaguing reference are about huge lists that can be used to send huge amounts of spam.

Russ - OK, I'll clear right now - and Sam is OK with this, too.

Jon - there are editorial things, but will fix these as we go.

Document is approved.

o draft-ietf-imapext-list-extensions-17.txt
IMAP4 LIST Command Extensions (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
Token: Lisa Dusseault

Brian is not starting a position.

Bill is holding a DISCUSS, and isn't here. Lisa will work with him on this. Alexis has sent mail, we're just not finished yet.

AD followup for now.

2.1.2 Returning Item
o draft-ietf-idr-restart-13.txt
Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
Token: Bill Fenner

No open positions, no DISCUSSes. Approved with no discussion.

Ross - anything I should do since Bill's not here? Amy - No, no notes, etc. so no action required.

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
o draft-newman-i18n-comparator-13.txt
Internet Application Protocol Collation Registry (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
Token: Lisa Dusseault

Brian - seen Gen-ART reviews? Lisa has seen them, and some responses. Brian will be NO-OBJ if Lisa has seen the comments.

Russ is clearing his DISCUSS immediately.

Sam's DISCUSS was about nameprep and appropriateness for domain names - does this address the DISCUSS? Sam hasn't seen a response on table downloading issue in his DISCUSS.

Lisa - do we need to bring this document back to the telechat?

Sam - no, we will have seen it. May need IETF Last Call, but not another agenda slot.

Yoshika from Jabber - IANA needs more time, but they have more time now.

Lisa - For the general issue of getting good review, APPS area formed an early review team to help with general early reviews (and noted ECRIT specifically might be ready for review by this team). The review team hasn't yet been widely announced, Lisa and Ted are waiting until they've got a few reviews under their belts. For the specific issue of reviews of this document, it's gotten more review than you'd think -- multiple authors, plus other documents that use it, plus other reviewers.

Revised ID needed.

o draft-melnikov-imap-search-ret-03.txt
IMAP4 extension to SEARCH command for controlling what kind of information is returned (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
Token: Ted Hardie

Document was approved with no discussion.

Ted asked for point raised, writeup needed to do some cleanup from Gen-ART and Ted's review. Will be RFC Editor note.

2.2.2 Returning Item

3. Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"

3.1.1 New Item
o draft-ietf-sipping-transc-framework-04.txt
Framework for Transcoding with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Informational) - 1 of 2
Token: Jon Peterson

<very short discussion, but scribe zoned out for about 15 seconds>

This document will be in AD followup.

o draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-01.txt
OAM Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks (Informational) - 2 of 2
Token: Ross Callon

Lots of open positions - do we have required votes? Only need one "yes" for Informational.

Brian - have you seen David Black/Gen-ART review comments?

Ross - RFC Editor note, or new draft?

Brian - or you can ignore them...

Ross will type up the RFC Editor note reflecting these comments.

3.1.2 Returning Item

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"

3.2.1 New Item
3.2.2 Returning Item
3.3 Individual Submissions Via RFC Editor
The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.

Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on
to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.

3.3.1 New Item
o draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-05.txt
LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering (Informational) - 1 of 1
Token: Ross Callon

Ross has a DISCUSS on this document. He likes the document, but it's in CCAMP scope.

Sam - "conflicts with ongoing work"? Is there ongoing work?

Ross - chairs intend to do this.

Sam - this would be a better response than "extends a protocol"

Ross - what RFC is this? 3932...

Brian - but this is harsh, because you like the document.

Ross - that's why I was saying "extends a protocol".

Sam - send authors a message privately saying "take this to CCAMP, we like it"

Mark - are these guys on the individual path because Alex was diverting new work from CCAMP? Ross will check on this.

Ross - start with e-mail to authors/WG chairs?

Brian - better thing to do, because we're saying "DNP", but we like the document.

Ross - WG chairs won't be surprised at all. What then?

Brian - we send pro forma response to RFC Editor, but we'll all know what it means.

AD Followup? probably the only realistic choice for next state.

3.3.2 Returning Item

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
o Session Initiation Protocol (sip) - 1 of 3
Token: Cullen Jennings

Cullent - Changes are adding milestones for work that's already underway. We have strong individual documents already, and docs don't extend the WG scope. SAML and consent framework are on this list. Also asking for dates on WGLC and dates on "send to IESG".

Brian - this is fine. Is adding SAML something that's always been expected?

Cullen - SAML isn't called out, but have to make third-party assertions to do transfer, etc. so we've always expected this.

Jon - there is some text about this in the goals section - mentions certificates.

Brian is happy.

Other comments? Sam isn't sure this needed to come to the IESG. Definitely doesn't need external review.

Will make changes to the charter and send announcement.

Cullen remembers a typo but can't remember if it was in SIP or AVT - will check and send ticket saying OK to announce.

o Audio/Video Transport (avt) - 2 of 3
Token: Cullen Jennings

Cullen - changes to body of charter, because FECFRAME went to its own working group. We've also added text on switching codecs from Lars and added milestones.

Brian - some dates are already in the past. Cullen will update them before announcements.

Cullen - we could do AES-192 and AES-256 - should we do both? We don't care, tell us what the answer is.

Russ - US federal goverment will require AES-192 - Cullen will leave text as it is.

Brian - these are bigger changes than the SIP changes previously.

Cullen - changes won't be news to WG

Brian - point of IETF announcment is to see if it's news to anyone else.

Sam - is this going to affect the rest of the IETF?

Cullen - no, and that's a good metric. Current text needs some work, will fix the dates.

Approved with final text to come.

o Language Tag Registry Update (ltru) - 3 of 3
Token: Ted Hardie

Ted - Fairly big change - adding lots of codepoints. Pretty practical, individual draft already exists, think working group can deliver on time, although there's a risk from non-participants. Think we need to send out for early review. Not just new code-points, there is some non-mechanical change. Real work to be done.

Will go for external review and return to agenda for approval.

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

5. IAB News We can use

Leslie is just back from two weeks away from e-mail (yeah!).

Brian was aware of anycast discussion, and would like to have IESG involved in this at some point.

Brian also noted that IANA contract has been renewed.

Leslie said the date for the routing and addressing workshop has been fixed (October 18th and 19th, in Amsterdam).

Otherwise, it's been quiet...

6. Management Issue

6.1 Expedited processing of draft-ietf-ltru documents (Brian Carpenter)

Ted - responsible for this work now, would like to see this expedited - can continue to point to BCP 47, but have concerns about one document being approved but not the other.

Brian - if they use BCP47 URL, they get two RFCs concatenated. Would be nice to put a flag in the concatenated file saying "keep reading" - this is overdue from Postel days.

Cullen - has strong objection to references to container documents, but see no reason why we should not expedite.

Sam - has anyone seen anything that alarmed them about the list of concerns in Jefsey's appeal? No one spoke up.

Brian - target date? Not sure I got a response from Mark Davis.

Ted - pick 9/10 as target date, unless we hear something else.

Brian - IANA has work to do on this, right?

Yoshiko - registry already created, IANA actions are already done, we think.

Brian - great, will change text to leave IANA out. (text sent in Jabber)

6.2 Administrative question on RFC publications (Ted Hardie)

Reply to Jefsey said that RFC Editor puts appealed documents on hold - wanted to ask Joyce if this is automatic. Joyce said that it was a general response. RFC Editor team pulls the document when they see an appeal "just in case", but don't immediately put document in HOLD state.

Sam - we were confused ... Brian - because the answer could have been interpreted differently. Ted - IESG state isn't HOLD, it's just until we check with IESG to see if the document should be in HOLD.

Brian - we can't wordsmith this now, but we'll put something clear in the minutes explaining this. Do people agree?

(voice not recognized) - clarify to the community?

Brian - minute first, then clarify.

Ted will craft language.

Brian - Bill made the point that this sort of communication should be copied to the community (to delay or expedite publishing) - does anyone disagree?

Sam - be sensitive to complaints about volume, if we get complaints. Could be on another list. One document a month probably isn't too much.

6.3 Jefsey Appeal (executive session) - was not minuted, and non-IESG left the call for this discussion.

6.4 Normative References document

Brian is not sure we'll find common ground on the approach Ted suggested.

David thinks that clearing his DISCUSS leaves Cullen hanging. Don't want to move toward approving a document we don't support. What do other people think?

Brian - did Cullen see Ted's text? No.

Ted - let's agree that this document isn't complete and design an experiment, last call the experiment, and publish it as an ION - and this one as an RFC. Not sure RFCs can refer to IONs yet, of course.

Sam - is this something we can change during the experiement?

Ted - if we get community feedback.

Cullen - sounds good so far. Who writes that document?

Brian - at least the IESG must stand behind it, whoever writes it.

Cullen - so we have to decide that's a reasonable experiment before we approve it, right? Why do we need an RFC to say that we should do an experiment? The community can publish RFCs that update the IESG's job description? I'd object to this.

Brian - would this change David's view?

David - can live with this.

Lisa - what if we fail, can't produce an ION we agree with or just don't have the cycles?

Brian - must become a no-op then.

Sam - if there's no energy to produce an ION the experiment fails. There is an alternative (which I would also support). If we think there's community support for part of the BCP, we just say that.

Brian - but the community announcement didn't say that.

Sam - not sure there's interest in doing all of the experiment (ex. referring to Internet Drafts) - are there?

Ted - Bill isn't here, and he saw the need for this.

Ross - have seen documents held up for a year and a half because of downrefs. Should be able to publish if a document author disappears. This isn't in scope for the current experiment, but I'd like to be able to publish pointing to a document that hasn't been approved yet (if the referred-to document author disappears, for example).

Brian - first step is an updated proposal based on this discussion.

Sam - order is wrong. If no one is interested in the Internet Draft part, we shouldn't update the proposal.

Brian - not sure everyone has clear understanding here.

David - agree with Sam - if we approve something we don't agree with, that's bad for the IESG. If there's only one AD interested for one or two documents per year, probably not worth our time.

Brian- needs more followup, with more information, including the question of who would use this.

6.5 Plenary

Lisa withdrew her suggestion for lightning talks, but would still like to spend less time in plenaries.

Brian - plan was to cut down report time in Wednesday plenary, we don't have another topic, why do we need two plenaries? We have enough material for one and a half plenaries...

Leslie - would be happy to revisit the list of stuff that needs to be reported. Is this a matter of some urgency (would we cancel a room reservation in San Diego)? Don't think we can converge in time to do this for San Diego. Perhaps experiment in San Diego?

Brian - hard to know if we've been padding the plenaries because we had the time available.

Leslie - thinks IAB plenary hasn't been stuffed.

Brian- don't think IESG plenary is stuffed, but want to think about priorities.

Leslie - point is that we're getting the entire community together at a plenary - need to think about why we need to do that, what needs to be done then.

Ross - not sure I'd fill the time with an official IETF activity. Same conflict with breakfasts every morning.

Leslie - also have community concerns that we need to get lots of people together for

David - we have obligation to report lots of things, but possibly we can do this more effectively. We also have the eggs and tomatoes sessions talking about cookies, and we need to discuss stuff that matters. Need neutral host for this, since the discussion is about IESG actions.

Lisa - report budgets once a year instead of once an IETF cycle?

Leslie - need to look at what we need to be doing, whether people think it's boring or not. "Boring" is a win, if it wasn't outrageous.

Cullen - two comments, "boring" and "a waste of people's time", and we need to distinguish between them.

Leslie - comments are split, 50 percent of people find anything boring but it's not the same 50 percent on any two topics.

Sam - plenary time is so scarce. When we need to get people together, we have to do that, but resource is too scarce to manage from IAB and IESG. There was one plan when Sam joined the IESG, but IAB did their own thing. We're not going to come to consensus here because we don't have the right people here.

Leslie - not sure that assertion that IAB went off and did their own thing is accurate.

Sam - when we moved to two plenaries, Harald asked the community about having a second plenary to discuss administrative issues.

Leslie - we can challenge each other on facts, but that's probably not a good use of this time.

Brian - agree that San Diego is too late for us to make this change, but we need to discuss so it's not too late for the next IETF.

Leslie - need to have joint discussions on this soon

Brian - joint discussions at subcommittee level?

Leslie - or float a proposal...

Ross - like the idea of thinking about what needs to be presented, and THEN figuring out how many plenaries we need

Brian and Leslie - but this gets into hotel contracts, etc. way in advance. If we cancel two weeks in advance, we still pay

David- but if you have a room full of people wasting their time, that's even more expensive. At least, IESG can be making their part shorter.

Brian and Leslie will get heads together and have a proposal soon.

Leslie - IAB format is fairly consistent, decisions are about what goes in specific slots.

7. Agenda Working Group News

Jari Arkko - interviewing MIPSHOP co-chair candidates. Public announcement flushed out more candidates than expected. Interviews by phone with current co-chairs and with Mark.

Ross Callon - no

Brian Carpenter - closing newtrk

Lisa Dusseault - asked ATOMPUB to hold WGLC on their document (they were planning not to)

Lars Eggert - people working on Larry Roberts proposal at ITU, may approach us for agenda time in San Diego, trying to get IETF people involved on technical issues. Also interacts with Brian's draft on IETF protocol extensions. Sam - also need IPsec person involved in these discussion. Lars was going to bring this item to an informal telechat. Should we start a cross-area team to discuss with ITU? Expect something in next couple of weeks.

Bill Fenner -

Ted Hardie - OPES has agreed to do WGLC<sorry, missed draft name> and this will force some decisions. As Lisa said, looking for APP area review team participants.

Sam Hartman - no

Russ Housley - no

Cullen Jennings - no

David Kessens - no

Jon Peterson - no

Dan Romascanu - not present

Mark Townsley - no

Magnus Westerlund - not present