Minutes IAB Teleconference 2008-07-02

1. Roll-call, agenda-bash, approval of minutes, administrivia

1.1. Agenda

1.2. Attendance

PRESENT

Loa Andersson

Gonzalo Camarillo

Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair)

Barry Leiba

Kurtis Lindqvist

Andy Malis

Danny McPherson

Dave Oran

Lynn St. Amour (ISOC Liaison)

Dow Street (IAB Executive Director)

Dave Thaler

Mark Townsley (IESG liaison)

Lixia Zhang

APOLOGIES

Stuart Cheshire

Sandy Ginoza (RFC Editor Liaison)

Russ Housley (IETF Chair)

Olaf Kolkman (IAB Chair)

Gregory Lebovitz

1.3 Meeting Minutes

No meeting minutes were reviewed during this call.

2. IETF 72 Planning

2.1. Overall IAB Schedule for IETF 72

Olaf walked through the IAB schedule for the Dublin meeting. It

was decided to add time on Sunday for a discussion of the IP Model

architecture topic. Dave Thaler will lead this session. The group

also added a Wednesday morning meeting for testing the Marratech

conferencing software. ISOC already uses this software, and the

IAB is considering it as an option for reducing conference call

expenses.

2.2. IETF 72 Technical Plenary

Danny gave an update on preparations for the IETF 72 plenary, which

is converging to a focus on IPv6 adoption successes and barriers.

The session may also cover elements of carrier grade NATs and IPv4

address depletion (including RIR policies), though these would

likely constitute a secondary theme. The group discussed a list of

goals for the plenary and then considered potential candidates for

the technical panel. It was decided to invite 3-4 panelists with

varying perspectives to give a short talk on the topic. These

presentations would be followed by an IAB-moderated panel

discussion and Q&A session. Board members were asked to comment on

the current plan. Danny will collect comments and provide an

update next week.

3. IANA Wording Update

Danny, Kurtis, and Olaf have been coordinating with Bill Graham and

Leslie Daigle on recent correspondence with the U.S. Dept. of

Commerce. The subject of the correspondence is language within the

DoC contract with ICANN that references the IETF/IAB role in the

management of the protocol parameter registry. Danny has been

working on revised text ahead of the Dublin meeting, but it was

noted that there may not be an immediate need to push through new

language. There were no specific inputs from the rest of the IAB.

Danny will give another update at the next business meeting.

4. IAB Liaison Shepherds

There was a brief discussion of the updated liaison shepherd role

description and the current list of IAB shepherd-liaison pairings.

The plan requires IAB shepherds to communicate with their liaisons

at least once each month, assist in liaison activities (as needed),

get periodic reports from the liaison (e.g. prior to an IETF

meeting), and provide a short update bi-annually to the entire IAB

on the overall status of the liaison relationship. The group also

decided that it would be worthwhile to develop an internal list

of informal affiliations with outside organizations. The purpose

of this list would be to assist board members in locating other

members (or external individuals) who have existing relationships

and/or participation with other SDOs.

5. IP Host Configuration Document Review / Status

Dave Thaler reported that he had gotten some feedback on the draft,

and that the main addition to the last version was new text on

dual-homed nodes (Danny’s comments). In this area, the draft

attempts to generalize functionality of dual-stack nodes, and

references the DHCP-specific RFC as needed. It was decided to

begin an IETF call for comments sometime next week. Dave will

send an email to the IAB list with a link to the latest draft,

which is currently hosted on Bernard’s server.

6. NAT-PT / IESG Update

Mark gave an update on NAT-PT and recent discussions within the

IESG. It appears that the IESG may be heading down a path that

leans on DNS rather than requiring host changes. This direction

differs from earlier IAB thinking as was outlined in Elwyn’s slides

from the Sept IAB meeting. Dave Thaler noted that there does not

appear to be community consensus on a preferred approach.

Mark had sent out an email with a strawman proposal, to which Dave

suggested added some introductory material with additional context.

There is something of an analogy to the IESG approach to the

routing scalability problem, where the problem was divided into

nearer term IETF work and longer term IRTF work, but that this

context was missing in Mark’s existing email. The group walked

through the Elwyn’s slides. There are a variety of sub-cases in

this problem space, and Mark indicated that the current IESG plan

looks to consider out of scope those cases involving IPv4

origination or requiring host changes. Lixia re-phrased the

situation as “there may be simple solutions that cover 90% of

the problem – is it worth the effort to tackle the remaining open

issues?”

It was decided to add text to Mark’s email that identifies dual-

stack as the preferred approach, suggests proceeding with v6-v4

translation for supporting v6 only islands, and defers the case of

v4 hosts originating sessions to a v6 server. Mark will write a

draft email and send it to the IAB for review prior to mailing it

to the larger community. IAB members were requested to provide

Mark with timely feedback on the proposed text.

7. Action Item Status

7.1. Unwanted Traffic RG

Danny reported that the IAB-specific work on this topic is closed

for now, but that steady, ongoing work is likely outside the IAB.

There is an IAB draft that has been circulating, but there is no

immediate deadline for publication. The IAB will revisit this

document after the next IETF meeting. It was noted that the IAB

effort in this area had helped to drive a successful investigation

of the issues, and that much of the space now lies within the scope

of the IRTF Anti-spam Research Group (ASRG) and the OPS Area of the

IETF.

7.2. Anycast

Oran is working on comments.

7.3. Discussion on Infrastructure ENUM Document

No update.

7.4. ICANN NomCom

No update.

8. Document Status

8.1. What Makes for a Successful Protocol

This document is with the RFC Editor.

8.2. Principles of Internet Host Configuration

Dave Thaler noted that there is one more week for IAB review of

this document before submission. He will confirm that Lixia’s

latest comments have been incorporated and will send out email to

the group.

8.3. Design Choices When Expanding DNS

Dave Thaler reported that there were some recent tests to determine

current server behavior for various record types. He just recently

sent the test results to Olaf, who will determine if/how they

impact the current draft.

8.4. DNS Synthesis Concerns

This document is also on Olaf’s plate. Danny recently sent Olaf

comments, and noted that the area is getting more exposure as of

late due to cross-domain scripting. It was agreed that there would

be value in the IAB publishing this document.

8.5. A Survey of Authentication Mechanisms

Danny reported that he had an updated version of this document, and

that the plan was for Gregory to take over as editor when he

returns from vacation. Eric Rescorla and Bernard Aboba have also

been assisting, and had previously worked on the document while on

the IAB.

8.6. Headers and Boilerplates

The IAB Stream header needs to be added to this document, and there

may be some relation between this draft and the errata draft.

Danny will coordinate with Russ and Olaf on the matter.

9. AOB

Barry noted the recent comments at the Philadelphia plenary about

the increasing number of DISCUSSes being originated by the IESG.

These comments prompted a number of side conversations, and Barry

asked if the subject was discussed at the IESG plenary. Loa and

Mark indicated that the IESG is indeed continuing a discussion on

the use of DISCUSSes. Barry asked if it was appropriate for the

IAB to approach the IESG on the matter in order to initiate a

conversation. It was suggested that the current time might be

less than ideal for raising this issue due to the pending appeal.

There was also agreement that the IAB does not want to be seen as

directing the actions of the IESG. No specific next steps on the

matter were identified.

10. Conclude Call