Narrative Minutes

INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative Minutes for the July 19, 2007 IESG Teleconference

Narrative Scribe: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>

With corrections from Dan Romanascu, Russ Housley, Jari Arkko.

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Bash the Agenda

Russ - Sam DEFERred SPAM-OPS document, but this turns into a meta-discussion about what is "best" and "current" in a BCP, can we move this to a management item? will be 6.3.

1.3 Approval of the Minutes

July 15 minutes approved.

June 21 narrative minutes were approved. Spencer requested posting as ticket number [Inquiry #96137].

May 24th narrative minutes were approved (at v2). Amy will post this version.

1.4 Review of Action Items

Cullen/well known protocol names - will be done soon, making progress.

2. Protocol Actions

2.1 WG Submissions
2.1.1 New Item
o draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-05.txt
IPv6 Transition in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 5
Token: Jon Peterson

Jon - will go revised ID on this document.

o draft-ietf-xcon-bfcp-connection-05.txt
Connection Establishment in the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 5
Note: Adam Roach is the PROTO Shepherd Note to SEC ADs for IESG review: We need to look at IPv6 addresses and certificates in this draft. May result in some small changes to document.
Token: Cullen Jennings

Cullen - will make clarifications for Tim's DISCUSS. Just looking at Chris' DISCUSS now.

Russ - I think Chris is right. Was hoping EKR would respond.

Cullen - yeah, but EKR is underwater now

Will go AD follow-up

o draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptor-object-09.txt
Raptor Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 5
Token: Magnus Westerlund

Document was approved with no discussion.

o draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-sip-07.txt
Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 5
Token: Magnus Westerlund

Will go revised ID needed based on DISCUSSes.

o draft-ietf-sip-acr-code-05.txt
Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 5
Note: The document shepherd is Dean Willis. Note IETF LC ends the day of the call. Cullen will hold discuss on waiting for LC comments.
Token: Cullen Jennings

Document was approved with no discussion.

Cullen - trying to decide what to do with Lars' comment. Approved, point raised.

2.1.2 Returning Item
o draft-ietf-dhc-server-override-04.txt
DHCP Server Identifier Override Suboption (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
Note: Bringing this document back to agenda, hopefully with the past issue solved
Token: Jari Arkko

DISCUSS is very clear, Jari has told authors to resolve it.

IESG did not discuss ABSTAIN position.

Yoshiko/IANA - where does this information go?

Jari will hold DISCUSS on behalf of IANA for this question.

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
NONE
2.2.2 Returning Item
NONE

3. Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions

3.1.1 New Item
o draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-13.txt
Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane Route Convergence (Informational) - 1 of 4
Token: Ron Bonica

Revised ID needed (no discussion on call)

o draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-13.txt
Terminology for Benchmarking IGP Data Plane Route Convergence (Informational) - 2 of 4
Token: Ron Bonica

Revised ID needed (no discussion on call)

o draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-13.txt
Considerations for Benchmarking IGP Data Plane Route Convergence (Informational) - 3 of 4
Token: Ron Bonica

Revised ID needed (no discussion on call)

o draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-04.txt
Requirements for a DKIM Signing Practices Protocol (Informational) - 4 of 4
Token: Tim Polk

DISCUSS is from Lars, not present on call. Will go Revised ID needed.

Russ - added to agenda after Friday?

Tim - thought it was Friday morning - do people need more time?

Russ - As a courtesy, when agenda items are added after the preliminary agenda is sent by the Secretariat, then the shepherding AD should send an email to the IESG mail list to warn about the late addition.

Tim - will do.

3.1.2 Returning Item
NONE

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD

3.2.1 New Item
o draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-07.txt
6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation Specification (Informational) - 1 of 3
Note: Document shepherd: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Individual submission sponsored by AD
Token: Ron Bonica

Four DISCUSSes. Some people said "violates agreement with Softwires working group" - Ron wasn't aware of this agreement.

Mark will talk with Ron next week.

AD Followup.

o draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-01.txt
Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic (Historic) - 2 of 3
Token: Cullen Jennings

Not DISCUSSes, but tutorials for Cullen. - status of document, and IANA registry pointers. Please tell me the answer.

Dan - any marking on 3525 when this becomes HISTORIC? No.

Russ - document does not change, RFC index does. RFC text never changes.

Magnus - Updated/Obsolete and Status does update text?

Jon - RFC text is immutable when published.

Magnus - have seen changes on documents.

RFC Editor - are you looking at HTML version?

"Historic" status from RFC Editor does not appear in text, but it's inserted by IETF tools.

Jon - what does the status of a document that changes the status of another document need to be?

Magnus - moves to Historic have been Informational.

Cullen - I know what to do with both DISCUSSes - will go AD followup.

Chris - please review Wiki page on document status changes.

o draft-dawkins-nomcom-start-earlier-01.txt
IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Revision of the Nominating and Recall Committees Timeline (Informational) - 3 of 3
Token: Russ Housley

Two DISCUSSes. Surprising how hard this is.

Dave's are NITS,. Why is this a DISCUSS?

Dave - will clear now if you want.

Russ - will address comments in new revision.

Russ - only updating Informative part of a BCP - how to do this?

Jon - I'm concerned about the precedent

Cullen - If this document was describing a protocol, we would not mark this document as UPDATEing the protocol specification.
.
Magnus - We are not consistent about the use of UPDATE on protocol documents. We cannot find guidance by looking at our practice there.

Chris - We can say UPDATES is because the document is clearly updating part of the RFC 3777 text.

Cullen - Why is this NOT a BCP?

Russ - It was Last Called as Informational, and I'd like to avoid another 4-week last call to publish as a BCP. Current NomCom is following this document, so, we're not delaying anything for this NomCom. We agreed at the retreat that we wanted to get this non-normative document out before we started a design team to work on normative changes to RFC 3777. If Jon doesn't formally object, I'd like publish as Informational and include UPDATE in the header.

Jon - I will not formally object, but I'm concerned about the precedent.

Approved, point raised, writeup needed.

3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor

3.3.1 New Item
o draft-foschiano-udld-03.txt
Cisco Systems UniDirectional Link Detection (UDLD) Protocol (Informational) - 1 of 1
Token: Russ Housley

Russ saw Dan/author conversation. Author agrees, but don't we need to let this one go to RFC Editor?

Dan - just need to make sure RFC Editor understands the issues. Quite familiar with this ground. This is a proprietary layer-two protocol from 8 years ago, now being published on independent-submission track. Another SDO has selected a different protocol for their standard Just want to make sure we are all aware of issue.

Sandy - when we get COMMENTs back, we do work the COMMENTs with authors.

Dan - just want people to be aware of whole dialog. Now I can clear my DISCUSS.

Dan will forward the email thread between himself and the author to the RFC Editor.

Approved.

3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
NONE
4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
NONE
4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review

PIM - Protocol-Independent Multicast

Dave - worked with chairs to solidify text and be clearer about what WG will/will not do. If version 3 is required, will require rechartering.

Cullen - objected last time, now it's a thing of beauty.

Russ - this update includes many changes from the current charter. Does it need external review?

Cullen - agree about number of changes, but probably won't get any comments from external review anyway. No objection to being approved now if others agree.

Russ - any objections? None - WG recharter is approved.

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

Kerberos rechartering

<This agenda item was inadvertently left off of section 4.2.2, but was discussed (as a management item). It's reported here because that's the place on the agenda where it should have appeared>.

- do people think the revised charter should come back on August ninth?

Do it now...

Some comments, but no opposition.

The WG recharter was approved.

Sam will send a ticket about which milestone gets deleted.

5. IAB News We can use

From Russ and Mark... all the official IAB representatives are unavailable for this call.

Stewart Byrant has been named liaison for MPLS to ITU-T

Considering a Routing and Addressing Workshop with an enterprise focus (as opposed to previous ISP focus) - just at talking level now. Takeaways from previous workshop in Amsterdam included getting input from other groups that are affected. People think it COULD be a good thing to do, but no consensus on the details (Fortune 100, etc).

Ward - is this selling the idea to other groups, is it because requirements are different for other groups ... what's the problem we're solving?

Mark - "what are enterprises most concerned about" - renumbering? multi-homing? PI space and availability? Is there a crisis, or do they just NAT everything?

Cullen - thanks for the explanation, I understand now.

Mark - other issues exist.

Ross - how do people get invited?

Mark - was discussion about whether we even know who to invite or not. DThaler at Microsoft said he can help, but whether we invite medium-sized guys, etc. Devil is in the details. No decision to do this yet.

Ward - any other focus groups? Mark and Russ don't know of any. "Fast Mobility" is explicitly out of scope today.

Mark - what the heck to do about mobility - not enough clue, but we do have interest. Mark/Jari have action here, not an IAB thing now but could be.

Ward - secure transport is also out of scupe in current discussions.

Mark - didn't realize this - are we focusing on deployability more than security? Security isn't cut out, it's just hard.

Ward - focal group of users who could be included and aren't?

Mark - who DOESN'T want security?

Jari - do we solve security for the Internet architecture, or only for routing?

Mark - are we making mistakes, or just not involving people that could be involved?

Ward - other missing focal groups? Wireless routing?

Mark - I think that's captured under ????? and also security.

DWard - a bunch of focus groups, or is Enterprise the only one?

Mark - Loa is not here, but maybe I can take this feedback to IAB.

DWard - is this being captured in the RADIR document?

Jari - I don't believe it is being captured.

Russ - IAB might consider multiple workshops, or multiple focus groups at one workshop,

6. Management Issue

6.1 Requesting approval of update to ion-procdocs (Jari Arkko)

Russ - thought this was on the NEXT IESG telechat agenda.

Cullen - mostly just adding references. If we approved the earlier version, can't imagine how anyone would object. Document is only a pointer to other documents.

Russ - fork in the road - approve now, or at next meeting?

Magnus - approve it now.

No objections. Approved We'll take this off the NEXT IESG telechat agenda, too.

Cullen will post this.

6.2 Approved IANA Expert for RFC 4171 (Lars Eggert)

This agenda item was included to make sure that the minutes reflect the appointment of David Black.

6.3 SPAM-OPS

Russ - BCP put forward by individual, but not clear how "forward-looking BCPs" actually work - how do we fix a BCP when we approved it without a lot of deployment experience. Forming WG to do this is way overkill (although OPSEC outputs are good).

Ron - same issue again in OPSEC last month, too. "Proposed BCP"?

Sam - why is standards-track inappropriate if you know how to advance something. Am concerned about whether everything has consensus - that's the reason I DEFERred.

Russ - think we should be able to document proposals.

Sam - Experimental, Proposed Standard (if you know how it worked), and BCP - three possibilities.

Ron - "Proposed BCP" might not be completely insane.

Sam - what does it mean to be a BCP?

Sam - question is whether people can implement.

Jon - thought Standards-track was what people implement, BCP was what people deploy.

Russ - I pasted RFC 2026 text on BCP in jabber room

(RFC 2026 text follows)

Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
computer communication across interconnected networks. However,
since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
service requires that the operators and administrators of the
Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
While these guidelines are generally different in scope and style
from protocol standards, their establishment needs a similar process
for consensus building.

Cullen - people talked about "proposed common practice" with lower bar

DWard - propose common practice?

Cullen - but people say "it's not a protocol"

Sam - can we agree on things we DON'T want? "Slow BCP approvals". "Long debates about document status/classes". We need incredibly clear guidance.

Jon - we publish practices as Informational when we don't know what we're doing yet.

Russ - this wasn't unreasonable when we did it previously. Won't hold this document up while we figure out how to get out of this trap, but we need to avoid the continued problem. Discuss next week in Chicago? Did people see John's note from today? It touches all the corner cases.

Dan - the document should not be held until we solve the Proposed Standard versus BCP problem - disconnect the issues.

Russ will add this to agenda next week and clear DISCUSS.

7. Working Group News

Jari Arkko

- MANEMO, SAVA, and DDOS have agenda time in Chicago, in the Internet-Area Open meeting and in the AUTOCONF WG meeting.

- talking about turning IPv6 WG off and spinning up a maintenance WG.

- SHIM6 has completed WGLC and documents are being sent to IESG

Sam Hartman

- Need guidance from Dan on a co-chair selection

Russ Housley

IPR WG session in Chicago was moved to a different slot in order to accommodate travel schedules. Now Jorge will be able to attend.

Magnus Westerlund

- Storm about ICE last couple of days. After people spent 4 years on this, they are thinking there's no new information in this discussion, may go PUB-REQUEST before the meeting unless someone stops us.

- ICE is now up to -17. It's a big spec. It addresses all of the known open issues.

Other discussion - Meeting between ITU-T Leadership, the IESG, and the IAB will take place on Saturday before IETF 69 at Noon in the Adams room.