Narrative Minutes

Narrative Minutes for the January 24, 2008 IESG Teleconference

Narrative Scribe: Marc Blanchet <>
Changes submitted by Russ Housley, Magnus Westerlund

1. Administrivia

1.1 Roll Call

1.2 Bash the Agenda

Amy Vezza: anything new to agenda?

Michelle Cotton: to assign action item to somebody on the ports

Amy Vezza: in the management section of today's call

1.3 Approval of the Minutes

Amy Vezza: minutes jan 10th approved: no objections. will be posted.

Amy Vezza: corrected narrative minutes: dec 20th, jan 10th. no
objections. will be posted.

1.4 Review of Action Items

Amy Vezza: Lisa to find an author to update RFC3406

Lisa Dusseault: Cullen and I discussed. action would be IESG statement
on our policy for RFC3406. action item is still in progress and
assigned to me.

Amy Vezza: Jari IESG policy statement when AD requests a document to
be considered by IESG before the last call is ended.

Jari Arkko: still in progress

Amy Vezza: Cullen to get a response the AVT wg to solve a registration
issue with avi-codec registry

Cullen Jennings: just sent a ticket to the secretariat. action item is

Amy Vezza: another action item is for Sam but he is not here today.

2. Protocol Actions

2.1 WG Submissions

2.1.1 New Item
Amy Vezza: draft-ietf-btns-core-06.txt to Proposed Standard

Amy Vezza: one discuss. Token to Sam. Tim, are you taking care of this
for Sam?

Tim Polk: yes.

Tim Polk: already engaged with document authors. should be resolved
pretty quickly. one issue remaining to solve. AD-followup. I will be
the AD.

Amy Vezza: draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-13.txt to Proposed Standard

Amy Vezza: no open position. one discuss. Token to Sam. Tim?

Tim Polk: issue about use of MUST and SHOULD. Chris, did you have any
response from authors?

Chris Newman: no response from authors. embarrassing typo to be fixed.
so I move it to discuss.

Chris Newman: remove RFC??28 from the second list and AES from the
first list, and then it makes sense. needed to be fixed.

Tim Polk: absolutely

Chris Newman: might be done by rfc-editor note, but concerned it would
not be done.

Tim Polk: you are right. put this as AD-followup: either RFC-editor
note or new draft.

Tim Polk: other topic that you raised: how strongly recommending
support for server mediation?

Chris Newman: just a question. just make sure that it would have been
thought about.

Tim Polk: I'll followup with the authors with the other issue.

Chris Newman: move to No objection and AD-followup?

Tim Polk: no, hold the discuss, I'll followup with the authors.

Amy Vezza: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt to Proposed Standard

Amy Vezza:Token: Ross Callon. not here.

Amy Vezza: many open positions, many DISCUSS.

Russ Housley: put this as AD-followup (and probably also revised-ID
needed, but the AD will tell)

Amy Vezza: draft-ietf-manet-timetlv-04.txt to Proposed Standard

Amy Vezza: Token: Ross Callon

Amy Vezza: many open positions, many DISCUSS

Russ Housley: put this as AD-followup

2.1.2 Returning Item

draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-10.txt to Proposed Standard
Amy Vezza: Token: Mark Townsley. Mark not here.

Amy Vezza: no open positions. number of DISCUSS. some were cleared

Cullen Jennings: mine is a placeholder for a relation to another
document. as soon as the other document is cleared, I will clear mine.

Lars Eggert: mine is from last night. placeholder for transport issues.

Jari Arkko: in the middle of responding. feeling is that it can be
addressed and changes needed to the document.

Jari Arkko: architectural problem discussion can be addressed. minimal
requirements on doing things.

Lars Eggert: lot of my writing are comments. the DISCUSS is about the
algorithm that describes the probes or connectivity checks are sent
and rate-controlled. this is the missing piece.

Jari Arkko: that is good information.

Lars Eggert: most comments are not on the DISCUSS level. Borderline
issue is about the keepalives. not sure it is a DISCUSS. Transport
trying to remove keepalive and then shim6 requires it. Not sure what
needs to be done.

Jari Arkko: if transport is sending the keepalive, then we are silent.

Lars Eggert: problem is that if transport has nothing to send, then
you still need to send the keepalives.

Jari Arkko: only if there is traffic. if both endpoints are not
sending, then the whole thing is silent.

Lars Eggert: that was not clear to me. even if no endpoints is sending
traffic, the probe connectivity is still there.

Jari Arkko: no, we are not. the keepalive is only sent if there are
payload unidirectional traffic

Lars Eggert: ok, better than I thought. was not clear to me. then if
this is clear in the document, then I will clear.

Lars Eggert: we have a way forward.

Jari Arkko: David Ward had a discuss on BFD. we have a response.

Jari Arkko: authors are working on a revision. put this as revised-ID

draft-ietf-shim6-proto-09.txt to Proposed Standard
Amy Vezza: Token: Jari Arkko

Amy Vezza: no open positions. quite a number of discuss. want to talk
about them today?

Jari Arkko: some.

Jari Arkko: Ron had issues about the TE capabilities. I've proposed
some text. Ron, did you see them?

Ron Bonica: not yet.

Jari Arkko: Ross Callon DISSUS: assumptions of routing infrastructure
at the site needs to do. not true that shim6 is making this
requirement. it is in the basic ipv6 architecture to have multiple
prefixes in site rather than shim6. on-going discussion and we need to
finish that.

Jari Arkko: Sam Hartman: discussions of author (Erik) and Sam. there
is a plan on how to resolve this. Sam seems happy with the plan. plan
not executed yet. new text needed.

Jari Arkko: Tim DISCUSS and Dan DISCUSS are clear. new text is needed.

Jari Arkko: Dave Ward DISCUSS is a bit overlapping with Ross said,
with other things. not discussed here.

Jari Arkko: Magnus Westerlund DISCUSS is correct. will need to be
dealt with for the new revision.

Jari Arkko: Lisa and Chris had abstainted because rationale was not

Jari Arkko: Erik responded to Chris and Jari responsed to Lisa. Please
look at responses.

Lisa Dusseault: did not see any substantive in the december email?

Jari Arkko: I will resend to make sure.

Jari Arkko: bigger issue: PS vs EX. my plan for now is to address the
issues brought. Sam said it happens similarly with HIP and because it
was experimental, it was let through. if we can't address the issues,
then we will deal there. my assumption now is for PS. If we will do
this again, then I would charter the wg for experimental. Right now,
their charter is PS. I'm willing to fight for getting the document PS,
assuming that we can fix the issues.

Cullen Jennings: many of these issues were not known at the beginning
of the wg. Little balance to fight the charter.

Jari Arkko: I don't want to raise the bar for PS too high. I think we
can resolve the DISCUSSes. Sure, it is a not a solution to all routing
issues and multihoming.

Cullen Jennings: where are we going then?

Jari Arkko: the authors will try to address the technical stuff. Then
the IESG will decide what to do with the document, given last call
comments, etc...

Jari Arkko: but I don't want to take that decision before we can solve

Cullen Jennings: you want to solve the DISCUSS and see where we are.

Jari Arkko: the applicability statement is clear and won't change.

Jari Arkko: Ron, you suggested to have a separate discussion.

Ron Bonica: this is a huge architectural decision. we should spend a
whole hour discussing it.

Jari Arkko: yes. we will probably end up there.

Ron Bonica: fine.

Jari Arkko: let's see in 3 weeks where we are.

Cullen Jennings: see what it is before making decision on what to do
makes sense.

Jari Arkko: revised-ID needed.

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
draft-gulbrandsen-imap-enable-05.txt to Proposed Standard
Amy Vezza: Token: Chris Newman

Amy Vezza: two open positions, but these people are not here today. no
discuss. unless objections, it is approved.

Amy Vezza: approved.

Amy Vezza: are RFC-editor notes in the tracker correct?

Chris Newman: yes.

Amy Vezza: announcement to be sent.

3. Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions

3.1.1 New Item
draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt to Informational
Amy Vezza: Token: Ron Bonica

Amy Vezza: number of DISCUSS. Ron, discuss today?

Ron Bonica: no. revised-ID needed.

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD

3.2.1 New Item
draft-evain-ebu-urn-02.txt to Informational
Amy Vezza: Token: Lisa Dusseault

Amy Vezza: one DISCUSS. Lisa, discuss today?

Lisa Dusseault: this will be fixed easily. Tim?

Tim Polk: looks like people using a boilerplate. Wondering where they
get from. I'm clearing.

Lisa Dusseault: fix with RFC-editor note.

Russ Housley: approved point raised. write-up needed. Lisa will let
know when ready.

draft-dondeti-oma-mmusic-sdp-attrs-00.txt to Informational
Amy Vezza: Token: Cullen Jennings

Amy Vezza: one DISCUSS.

Cullen Jennings: yes.

Russ Housley: I thought we agreed on a sentence.

Cullen Jennings: Magnus, I was going to redo the process for PS and do
last call, instead of informational

Cullen Jennings: Magnus, you mentionned issues with change control here.

Magnus Westerlund: the only thing this document does is reference the
OMA fix for attribute. could be done with IANA. now it is going
through RFC-editor.

Russ Housley: add sentence that OMA is keeping control on this and
keep it informational

Magnus Westerlund: I agree

Russ Housley: put an RFC-editor note and we are done.

Cullen Jennings: Lars, ok too?

Cullen Jennings: my worry is if this would have come through the RFC-
editor, then we would have asked the wg.

Russ Housley: wg is happy with it.

Cullen Jennings: will write up the RFC-editor note.

Russ Housley: I clear. we can do: approved point raised.

Cullen Jennings: approved point raised.

3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor

3.3.1 New Item
draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-04.txt to Informational
Amy Vezza: Token: Magnus Westerlund

Amy Vezza: no DISCUSS. both RFC-editor and IESG notes in the tracker.
correct Magnus?

Magnus Westerlund: correct.

Amy Vezza: any objections for the RFC-editor to publish as

Amy Vezza: no objection. approved announcement to be sent.

Lars Eggert: don't have an objection, just a question.

4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
4.1.2 Proposed for Approval

vCard and CardDAV (vcarddav)
Amy Vezza: Token: Chris Newman

Amy Vezza: any objection of creation of vcarddav?

Amy Vezza: no objection. approved.

Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll)
Amy Vezza:Token: David Ward

Amy Vezza: any objection?

Russ Housley: yes. without David Ward and Ross Callon to tell who are
the wg chairs, we can't proceed.

Russ Housley: I sent comments, and they are not addressed in this
charter text.

Amy Vezza: keep this for next IESG.

Russ Housley: anyone have any other concerns to appear in the
narrative minutes for David and Ross?

Amy Vezza: none.

4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review

Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) (pkix)
Amy Vezza: Token: Tim Polk

Amy Vezza: quick rundown of the charter changes?

Tim Polk: extensive rewrite of the charter. was outdated. scope of the
wg has not changed except one: trust anchor work was considered for
separate wg, but not enough interest. now proposed in the pkix.

Russ Housley: I raised a concern on the text. Steve responded.

Tim Polk: I will drop in the new text in jabber.

Russ Housley: but the new proposed text did not show up in the charter
that was sent to the new-work list which goes beyond the IETF.

Tim Polk: new text need to be added.

Tim Polk: cryptographic algorithms remain in scope. Jari comment on
trying to maintain compatibility. ITU and IETF work are not
identical. Not similar to T-MPLS. Here, completly coordinated on
process, unrecognized extensions, unknown extensions with same number
but different meanings. I was confortable the compatibility. changes
have to be made but I'm not quite sure what the right words are. Steve
was not happy to removing the words "try to".

Jari Arkko: I like your explanation of the interpretation of the
words. This would be my first choice. Both of your comments were
informative and useful.

Tim Polk: I prefer to convince Steve to drop this issue. Only
possible issue is this an open-ended charter. I'm confortable with
the charter. I know people are looking for more prescriptive charters.
consistent with what pkix did in the past. I'm confortable with the
situation, considering the chairs, butl looking for guidance of this

Jari Arkko: my feedback should be treated as a comment. As long as you
know what you are doing, then fine. My experience with wg over long
time creates new work that should not have been in the charter. For
example, there was the trust anchor management bof and this charter
only have 4 words about it. It does not tell me much.

Tim Polk: trust anchor management: I had the same feeling about it
might help to add a few words. Maybe while fixing other issues, I'll
work on adding words on this issue. Would be useful for people.

Russ Housley: would like to find a way to send this out for comments.
would like to see this as rechartered before Philadelphia. leaves us
with one extra telechat.

Jari Arkko: two telechats.

Russ Housley: right.

Tim Polk: probably not the best political to send the edits without
having the chair looking at it. worried.

Tim Polk: I drop in the new charter in the jabber and can secretariat
hold it until monday for further updates?

Russ Housley: equivalent of approved point raised. you just want to
send them the new text to them before monday. i.e. once.

Tim Polk: I'll send the new charter to iesg and PKIX wg-chairs and
I'll make sure point resolved by monday.

Amy Vezza: must go for external review. holding until new text from
you. will wait for ticket from Tim Polk.

5. IAB News We can use

Amy Vezza: Olaf and Loa are not here. Russ?

Russ Housley: the bof coordination call will be 11h30 Eastern jan
31st. please make sure the bof description are in the wiki and time
for people to read, i.e. this weekend.

Dan Romascanu: phone number?

Russ Housley: IAB phone number.

Russ Housley: last plenary, there was a discussion on rotating the
plenaries. for philadelphia, IESG is wednesday. for minneapolis, IESG
is thrusday.

Lars Eggert: unrelated. swapping sessions sunday.

Russ Housley: tried once. turned out many IESG had afternoon meetings
with wg chairs, document editors. in parallel to tutorials.

Russ Housley: raise again if needed.

6. Management Issue

6.1 Appeal (Russ Housley)

Amy Vezza: just to put the decision in the official minutes.

6.2 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)

Russ Housley: we have a pile of errata. we need to find a process and
a plan. I don't have a proposal.

Russ Housley: how formal we need to be for this?

Russ Housley: some are significant and should be dealt by the IESG.
some are minors and should find how can be fast to approve.

Russ Housley: rfc-editor is not happy with how the authors categorizes
the minor and major errata. often incorrect.

Lisa Dusseault: what is editorial to one person is technical to
another. even authors, but also AD might consider different

Russ Housley: agree. how do we deal?

Russ Housley: section in the IESG agenda and deal with it?

Lisa Dusseault: we should show most errata, as unapproved and
unapplied. ready for next revision of document.

Lisa Dusseault: reason is the cost and danger.

Russ Housley: remember we went into this discussion: like a parking
lot: please consider this for the next rev.

Russ Housley: Sam was ok with that approach. I don't remember others
state their opinion.

Cullen Jennings: we want this but we don't want the process to fail.

Magnus Westerlund: fine with at the discretion of the AD.

Russ Housley: you think a bunch can be dealt by the AD?

Magnus Westerlund: yes and with the help of wg chairs, authors, when

Magnus Westerlund: if it is so significant that it needs to go to
IESG, then it is not an errata, but an update of the work. If it is
smaller, then it should be available and I fully agree with Lisa.

Lisa Dusseault: the few that we approve, they should be prominent so
that readers can see clearly.

Magnus Westerlund: there should be a prominent way to see the approved

Russ Housley: let me see the conclusion: we should treat errata
similar to when the RFC-editor comes back to AD about a change asked
by the author during the AUTH48. AD may say: no (i.e. rejecting the
errata) or may say leave it for next version or may say approved
errata. Right?

Lisa Dusseault: most of it is matter of policy instead of process.
Someone has to set the bar that this is not a crucial errata.

Lisa Dusseault: Who decides if an errata is crucial or not? not yet

Magnus Westerlund: need a tool to handle it. another issue.

Russ Housley: we need to know what we want before tooling it.

Magnus Westerlund: yes.

Cullen Jennings: agreed with what you said, but need to go further as
well. during RFC-editor stages, we are correcting grammar things.

Russ Housley: but the RFC-editor does not go back to AD for those.

Cullen Jennings: good point. A lot of these errata I looked at were
things that were not causing problems with implementations.

Russ Housley: 90% of these

Cullen Jennings: I don't think people know exactly what the errata
process is for.

Magnus Westerlund: essential or editorial.

Russ Housley: proposing to come up with a way to test this theory.

Russ Housley: would like each AD to process two errata in the next
week and what they would do and report back.

Russ Housley: Then see what we could come up. what do people think?

Jari Arkko: sounds good.

Tim Polk: yes. do a couple before we understand if the process makes

Sandy Ginoza: send a new email list with identifiers. break by area.
will send it today.

Russ Housley: action is for AD to process two errata and figure out.
learning exercise.

Dan Romascanu: timeline?

Russ Housley: by next telechat.

Russ Housley: AV: management item in the next telechat.

Cullen Jennings: when authors are still around and available, how we
would leverage them?

Russ Housley: same as AUTH48, you would use them. in other words, free

Sandy Ginoza: the authors are cced in the errata notice.

Russ Housley: sometimes, it is confusing because the authors don't
know what to do.

Magnus Westerlund: sometimes, you want the wg chairs also to be
involved, but don't get it.

Russ Housley: this is an area where we need to improve the process.
Sandy, do you see how this gets confusing?

Sandy Ginoza: yes.

Amy Vezza: will put it back on feb 7th agenda.

6.3 Guidance to WG Chairs regarding off-topic mail list posting (Russ

Amy Vezza: This item is to record the action that was already taken in
the minutes.

6.5 designate port-numbers expert

Michelle Cotton: just want an action item to record and assign it to
somebody. to find a port-numbers designated expert.

Michelle Cotton: Lars would be the action item recipient.

Lars Eggert: fine. looking for 5.

Michelle Cotton: currently one person doing it. 5 overkill. maybe 3.

Russ Housley: we need a primary and secondary.

Lars Eggert: could you ask how much time.

Michelle Cotton: can provide stats and guidelines.

Michelle Cotton: some of them take 5 or 20 minutes.

Lars Eggert: expert to take over sooner?

Michelle Cotton: would like to take over sooner.

Russ Housley: Amy, put action item to Lars Eggert. find a primary,
secondary and backup.

Russ Housley: you need a primary for a single point of contact

7. Agenda Working Group News

Russ Housley: document last called of Brian Carpenter of revision of
RFC2026. someone suggested to do a bof.

Russ Housley: looks like changes to RFC2026 will be an heavyweight

Magnus Westerlund: discussions last weeks about TURN in BEHAVE wg,
internet and ops. issues with deploying relays. Some reviews are needed.

Amy Vezza: last call for neustar secretariat. contract is ending jan
31st. this number will not be used thereafter. will have a transition
time up to feb 4th.

Russ Housley: please pass on my thanks to the secretariat.

6.4 Executive Session for IAOC Candidate Selection (Russ Housley)

IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006,