Narrative Minutes

Narrative Minutes for the June 21, 2007 IESG Teleconference

Narrative Scribe: Spencer Dawkins <>

With corrections from Jari Arkko, Russ Housley, Magnus Westerlund.

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll Call

We discovered that we now have two Marks on the telechats...

1.2 Bash the Agenda

Sandy - had discussion with Russ and Olaf about a timeframe when RFC Editor requests ADs to override non-responsive authors - added as management item.

Russ - PANA documents appeared in the wrong part of the agenda (Informational/Document actions vs Standards/Protocol actions) - did they get the proper review? There are DISCUSSes, but there are a lot of open positions.

Cullen - this seems to be a known bug, when you have two documents with different tracks - tracker goes based on agenda order. Ted Hardie encountered this.

1.3 Approval of the Minutes

Minutes for June 7? Approved with no objections.

Narrative Minutes for May 24th? Still in process.

Narrative Minutes for June 7? Approved with no objections. Submitted for posting as [Inquiry #95645]

Narrative Minutes for IESG Retreat? Approved with no objections. Submitted for posting as [Inquiry #95648]

1.4 Review of Action Items

Cullen on well-known protocol numbers - still in process, will require a new RFC.

Sam on IANA expert for RFC 4767 - Sam is waiting for author response.

2. Protocol Actions

2.1 WG Submissions
2.1.1 New Item
o draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-09.txt
The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 8
Token: Ross Callon

Ross sent proposed text to Lars and authors this morning - Lars not understanding why TCP RSET packets are special. Is this only IMCP, or is it IKE and other control traffic, too?

Seems important for both ends to handle this traffic the same way.

Ross - agree, ICMP is obvious to include, not sure we can come up with a complete list, and if we have an incomplete list, things won't work. Proposing TCP and ICMP, nothing else.

Lars, Sam and Ross to discuss with authors and propose text that makes these parties happy.

DWard would like to see proposed changes, too.

Sam (Jabber): If implementations send ttl 255 for all packets that they have any GTSM session with then you get interop

Ross - right

DWard - that's how you get interop today.

o Two-document ballot: - 2 of 8
- draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-21.txt
The syslog Protocol (Proposed Standard)
- draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-09.txt
Transmission of syslog messages over UDP (Proposed Standard)
Token: Sam Hartman

Lars - apologize for not catching mandatory-to-implement transport, that's really bad.

Chris - normative reference to document that's not on the ballot - what do we do?

Sam - we have a standard practice.

Russ - shepherding AD makes judgement call that referred-to document is "stable enough" to leave referring document in reference hold at RFC Editor.

Revised ID needed, Sam confirms this.

Cullen - also cleared DISCUSS, missed normative reference to transport spec.

o draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-07.txt
Label Switching Router Self-Test (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 8
Token: Ross Callon

Ross - Clearly is revised ID needed at best, should be AD followup to make sure authors want to pursue this document based on DISCUSSes.

Yoshika - need IANA direction on which table to use.

Dan - number of IETF Last Call issues that weren't answered in this version.

o draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-06.txt
RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 8
Note: Document Shepherd: Tom Phelan (
Token: Lars Eggert

Lars - don't need to DISCUSS here, being taken care of by e-mail.

Cullen - ask that we WGLC documents like this in the future.

Lars - thought authors would fix any problems - they will fix anything that comes up.

(Much DISCUSS shuffling here, but one one DISCUSS at the beginning and at the end of the conversation)

o draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06.txt
A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Services (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 8
Token: Jon Peterson

Jon - want to talk about Lisa's DISCUSS

Lisa - will LoST be one-and-only protocol that gets used for these URNs? What to do if service URN is unresolveable.

Jon - document thinks URNs may be unresolvable, because authors expect to also use URNs for non-emergency service. These URNs have to be usable even without LoST.

Lisa - how does this work?

Jon - each top-level service can offer one or more mapping protocols per second-level service.

Lisa - need to be careful when we use this, if it's more than Informational. If it appears in a vCard, we have to explain how that would work.

Jon - agree, need constraints about specific services.

Lisa - usually we pick protocols based on schemes, but this time the choice is based on a string further down in the URN.

Jon - like a phone number in a SIP request - no routing ability until you resolve it.

Lisa - can you return another URN?

Jon - probably legal, but number of cases where that's useful probably pretty limited.

Lisa - I'm worried about this, but I'm cool.

Cullen - this is really old work, implemented in 2003 in product. Needs to get published.

Jon - Russ and Lars DISCUSSes are fine - can resolve these offline.

o draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-05.txt
Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping in split scenario (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 8
Note: Document Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil
<>. NOTE: Last Call expires June 25, 4 days after IESG telechat
Token: Jari Arkko

Jari - one major DISCUSS on anycast from Brian Carpenter, Sam, others. Thinking of cutting IKEv2 anycase feature out of the current document and doing the work somewhere else. Have to look at some of the details, and will try that. Revised ID needed when it finishes Last Call.

o draft-ietf-dhc-relay-agent-flags-03.txt
DHCPv4 Relay Agent Flags Suboption (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 8
Note: Document Shepherd is <>
Token: Jari Arkko

Approved with no discussion on this call.

o draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-05.txt
OSPF protocol extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 8
Token: Ross Callon

Ross - need to talk about some of the DISCUSSes - "is it really the right thing to use an IGP for this kind of discovery?" In this case, it's supporting routing. "is it the right place to put load tracking?" has been discussed on RTG list, but not lately.

DWard - OK for non-routing information, we do this, dynamic load information and periodicity just doesn't work, including aging in the IGP. Won't work, they added lots of open issues when they did this work.

Ron - what non-routing precedents?

DWard - look at opaque LSAs, even TE information isn't about routing so much.

Ron - TE is attributes of link itself, but this is another application running on the router.

DWard - suggest that this be done in a different LSA so it can be handled differently if we need to. Will do ISIS that way. Much flaming between IGP people and authors, they need to hammer this out.

Ross - what mailing list? PCE? cc RTG-Dir?

DWard - need to copy a bunch of lists because it's moving so fast.

Ross - had downref - should I take ISIS off the next agenda while we work this out? Will do that.

DWard - bring both OSPF and ISIS on same agenda, text is almost cut and paste between the IGPs. Requires revised ID and AD followup - what do we do?

Russ - doesn't matter (can flip a coin :-)

*** Pana documents were processed at this point in the telechat - please see discussion below ***

2.1.2 Returning Item
o draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-22.txt
OpenPGP Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
Token: Sam Hartman

Sam - have people read response from the working group?

Tim - satisfied, but expected to see revised version of the document. If they do what Derek Atkins proposed, I'm happy.

Magnus - will check and see if I'm fine with response.

Will go AD Followup.

From Chris in Jabber: Sam: the last openpgp revision did not address this comment: Section 6 mentions the constant '0x864CFB' while the sample code uses the constant '0x1864cfb'; which one is correct? That's probably a bug..

From Jari in Jabber: kudos for comparing the hex values, Chris!

From Sam in Jabber: Chris, you are correct.

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
2.2.2 Returning Item

3. Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions

3.1.1 New Item
o Two-document ballot: - 1 of 6
- draft-ietf-pana-pana-17.txt
Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA) (Proposed Standard)
Note: draft-ietf-pana-pana-17 is the latest version, with edits based on GEN-ART review.. .
- draft-ietf-pana-framework-09.txt
Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA) Framework (Informational)
Note: draft-ietf-pana-pana-17 is the latest version, with edits based on GEN-ART review.. .
Token: Mark Townsley

Authors can turn around new text quickly, Mark will make sure IANA has answers they need.

From Yoshiko in Jabber: IANA has questions about draft-ietf-pana-pana-17.txt . Last Call questions are not answered. Also "PANA Protocol Numbers" create a new sub-registry "AVP Codes", and IESG needs to designate an EXPERT.

o draft-ietf-ipfix-as-11.txt
IPFIX Applicability (Informational) - 2 of 6
Token: Dan Romascanu

Dan - don't need to DISCUSS, actionable, AD followup with editors and see if we need revised ID.

o draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-04.txt
Security Threats and Requirements for Emergency Call Marking and Mapping (Informational) - 3 of 6
Token: Jon Peterson

Don't need to DISCUSS, we have a one-word change in RFC Editor Note.

o draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13.txt
Requirements for Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (Informational) - 4 of 6
Token: Jon Peterson

Approved with no discussion.

o draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-04.txt
Reducing Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet
Sampling (PSAMP) Reports (Informational) - 5 of 6
Note: Nevil Brownlee is the proto-shepherd
Token: Dan Romascanu

Approved with no discussion.

o draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements-03.txt
Mobile IPv4 RADIUS requirements (Informational) - 6 of 6
Note: Document Shepherd is Pete McCann <>.
NOTE: Last Call ends on June 25th, 4 days after IESG telechat
Token: Jari Arkko

Only holding Jari's DISCUSS until Last Call expires. Did we decide not to include Pasi's issue?

Tim - missed that one, could have been black-holed with me.

Russ - pretty long comment, right? Should treat as Last Call comments even if it's not blocking..

Tim - completely blew it on this one, don't know how unless I'd already finished my review.

Jari - have a couple more days because Last Call hasn't ended.

Tim - will provide input, apologies for missing that one. Will have something to you by COB today.

3.1.2 Returning Item

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD

3.2.1 New Item
o draft-camarillo-sipping-profile-key-02.txt
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-Profile-Key Private Header (P-Header) (Informational) - 1 of 4
Token: Jon Peterson

Approved with no discussion.

o draft-ejzak-sipping-p-em-auth-04.txt
Private Header (P-Header) Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Authorization of Early Media (Informational) - 2 of 4
Token: Jon Peterson

Approved with no discussion.

o draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-07.txt
IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection (Informational) - 3 of 4
Note: A new revision is needed to address Last Call comments
Token: Jari Arkko

Approved with no discussion.

o draft-housley-smime-suite-b-02.txt
Suite B in Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) (Informational) - 4 of 4
Token: Tim Polk

Approved with no discussion.

3.2.2 Returning Item
3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor

3.3.1 New Item
3.3.2 Returning Item

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
o Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 (mext) - 1 of 1
Token: Jari Arkko

Any objections for external review?

DWard - are routing extensions really routing extensions?

Jari - no, very specific, people looking at requirements

DWard - longest charter with most milestones in least amount of time - is this realistic?

Jari - necessary because we're merging three WGs, want WG chairs to manage larger scope so ADs don't have to. Also not getting good review.

(Potential chair discussion is not minuted)

DWard - why is tunnel selection mechanism not needed? Don't want to get to get trapped in picking one, or is that even needed? When you wnat to switch between multiple interfaces, isn't selection critical?

Jari - words are from existing charters, trying to remember why they were there! should work with existing encapsulations.

DWard - not clear what working you're NOT working on... How can you do this work without considering impact on correspondent nodes?

Jari - can talk about routing optimization offline, but it's a known-to-be hard problem.

Dward - betting the usual case of wine about milestones and dates...

Jari - will do edits we've discussed and WG is roughly OK. Don't have chairs so can't approve yet. Probably next telechat or so.

Amy - don't need chairs for external reviews, right? Right. External review is approved pending edits? Yes.

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
o Protocol Independent Multicast (pim) - 1 of 1
Token: David Ward

Discussing a new co-chair, so there is one more change coming. WG has been working to that charter for 18 months, so this is just making things official.

Cullen - couldn't tell whether work is investigation or also includes approval for protocol work. Is it constrained enough to be useful?

Lars - they know what they're doing, just write that down.

Cullen - want to know what they CAN'T do without coming back to recharter. This is a blank check, and the blankness is the issue. No problem with milestones, just want to make sure charter and milestones match.

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

5. IAB News We can use - from Olaf to Mark (LESG liaison TO IAB, because IAB participants weren't available for this part of the call)

Lots of Liaison work going on, Scott Brim is stepping down as liaison to ITU-T for NGN. IAB is actively looking for a replacement.

Scott Brim is coordinating the "meet and greet" session in Chicago for the IESG, IAB, and ITU-T Study Group Chairs. One the topics is certainly going to be the successes and failures in the liaison relationship between the IETF and the ITU-T. TMPLS will almost certainly be discussed, so the IESG will be brought up to speed on this situation next Thursday during the Informal Telechat.

IPv4 address exhaustion generated first-time ARIN statement on depletion. There will be a discussion of the architectural concerns and protocol gaps that might be addressed by the IETF at the IAB/IESG Lunch on Sunday in Chicago.

6. Management Issue

6.1 Approval of Designated IANA Expert for RFC 3559 (The Secretariat) - IESG confirming selection of Dave Thaler

6.2 Approval of Designated IANA Expert for RFC 4733 (The Secretariat) - IESG confirming selection of Tom Taylor

6.3 Approval of Designated IANA Expert for RFC 3219 (The Secretariat) - IESG confirming selection of Jonathan Rosenberg

6.4 Approval of Designated IANA Expert for RFC 3292 (The Secretariat) - IESG confirming selection of Stephen and Avri

6.5 Timeframe for RFC Editor request for AD override of AUTH-48 for non-responsive authors.

Sandy - now thinking three weeks with no response from authors and then request AD to override - any feedback?

Russ - we considered two weeks, but that's a standard European vacation, so needs to be longer.

7. Agenda Working Group News

Jari Arkko

- On BOFs - had 4 proposals, all will be denied but all have agenda time somewhere. Would have approved SEND-EXT but proponents do not have documents ready. NEMO is still in discussions about the problem space, will discuss in AUTOCONF, will set up private meeting before Chicago.

Ron Bonica

- New chairs, Scott Bradner and Ted Sealy in OPS-AREA, Peter and Chris in GROW. GROW working on updated charter.

Lisa Dusseault

- Mark and Alexi will be chairs for HTTP BOF.

- IDNA BOF suggestion had no followup for Chicago, but background work being done. Not sure who's running this from IESG side, ADs not on top of the background discussion and don't know what we should be doing. Olaf and Leslie involved on IAB side and that may be the right answer.

Cullen Jennings

- New Geopriv WG draft came out a couple of weeks ago, so decision in Prague was right one

Tim Polk

- DKIM - requirements for signing practices is going to IETF Last Call. DKIM wanted to include "I don't send e-mail from that domain". Not clear that this is in charter scope, and may have overlap with SPF, was removed from document but may also be discussed in IETF Last Call. Chairs have text ready to go if there's support for this.

- also DKIM - signing practices 00 draft, WG arguments about DKIM-specific resource record vs prefixed TXT record, may have search issues, group is looking for eyes from DNS folks.

David Ward

- already discussed PIM previously on this call

Magnus Westerlund

- The FECFRAME WG has created a design team to propose a protocol.