Narrative Minutes
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative Minutes for the February 7, 2008 IESG Teleconference
Narrative scribe: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
With corrections by: Russ Housley, Lisa Dusseault, Dan Romascanu, Jari Arkko
1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll Call
This was actually more exciting than it should have been...
We introduced Cindy Morgan (training to run telechats/support IESG) and Alexa Morris from secretariat staff.
We actually welcomed them, too.
1.2 Bash the Agenda
Cullen - can't access anything - did I have updated charter for MMUSIC/AVT? No
Russ - add management item to discuss transition (Ray and Jim will join at the end of the call)
Michelle - can we add global-tree feature tags? Will be very brief. Also, 6.2 and 6.4 may be the same management item - combine?
Russ - Lisa - is 6.5 a management item or proposed charter?
Lisa - corresponded with secretariat just to get this on the agenda - can move this to 4.1.1. Already mailed out the charter text.
Dave - TMPLS?
Russ - will put item in about this, definitely need to talk about post-mortem.
1.3 Approval of the Minutes
2008 01 24 Minutes - approved with no discussion
2008 01 24 Narrative Minutes - Spencer verified with Marc that Marc is reviewing the draft minutes against the telechat recording and should be sending a copy for corrections in a few days.
1.4 Review of Action Items
IP o Lisa Dusseault to develop statement about IESG Policy with respect to RFC 3406 registrations.
Lisa - No VISIBLE progress, but I've been working on it...
IP o Jari Arkko to write an explanation of IESG policy of when ADs can request documents be considered by the IESG before the Last Call has ended.
Jari - hasn't been progress, but - is it OK if the advice is "just don't do it"? Anything more fine-grained?
Russ - usually gets us in trouble.
Cullen - fine with that.
Russ - do we need to write this down in the Wiki? Just put the statement there.
Jari - agree, too.
Amy - mark as done.
IP o Sam Hartman to write a draft explanation of informational balloting.
No report - Sam was not on call.
IP o All Area Directors to process two existing errata assigned to their area as a learning exercise DEADLINE: February 7, 2008 Teleconference.
Management issue to determine how this worked out... may be closed if everything went well.
IP o Lars Eggert to find primary and secondary experts for Port Numbers.
Lars - sent e-mail to draft team asking for volunteers. Allison volunteered but doubt she has cycles, still looking around, also think we need more than two with 20 requests/month
Russ - would be OK with Allison as primary while we search, could move to secondary if she doesn't have cycles.
2. Protocol Actions
2.1 WG Submissions
o draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05.txt
MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario (Proposed Standard)
Note: Document waiting on mip6-hiopt resolutions before it can complete successful WGLC in DHC WG
Token: Jari Arkko
Amy - Lots of open positions, and we had issues with permissions, etc. in balloting.
Jari - can talk about DISCUSSes a little bit. Tim - your issue is correct, would like to see your words from DISCUSS in Security Considerations - enough for you to clear? Haven't had time to look at Dan's DISCUSS. David Kessens raised good questions (some documents are not yet reviewed/approved), need to go into e-mail discussion with chairs and authors.
Tim - happy to clear on the call if you have text in RFC Editor note.
Jari - will do this as AD followup.
Dan - not sure revised ID is required yet.
o draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-01.txt
Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol (Proposed Standard)
Note: Document Shepherd is Brian Haberman
Token: Jari Arkko
Jari - Tim's DISCUSS - basically a complaint about obsoleting 2472, which has already been obsoleted by another RFC - this document and another one actually obsolete 2472 together, not sure how to say this in our syntax, but it is explained in the Introduction.
Tim - 2472 is completely obsoleted, but this document isn't the completed replacement? I'm OK with that, I was just confused.
Jari - authors have resubmitted but we seem to be having issues with tools.
Tim - will clear.
Jari - discussed with Dan via e-mail about MIB. Almost sure we have this somewhere, don't know where, but have asked experts.
Dan - think this should be pointed to, should be easy, if there's not a place to point, should point out item for future work.
Jari - either name the object or say there isn't one (yet). Revised ID needed.
Michelle - IANA not clear what to do, sent e-mail, no response.
Jari - will take DISCUSS on your behalf.
Dan - should turn Chris comment into DISCUSS.
Jari - can do that, and figure out what the answer is.
Amy - revised ID needed plus IANA DISCUSS - right? right...
o draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt
DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6 (Proposed Standard)
Note: Document Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil
Token: Jari Arkko
Jari - haven't been able to review DISCUSSes (working group interim meeting), but what's been raised seems reasonable.
Tim - did more research, 15.5 and 15.6 in 3775 already talks about the threat from loss of privacy. Just reference in one sentence? But couldn't sort out all the implications. Will update my DISCUSS with the numbers.
Lars - is this a merger between competing proposals?
Jari - no, but has been heavily modified by DHCP-clueful people
Lars - had hard time understanding all the different options.
Jari - will respond to your DISCUSS. Revised ID needed.
o draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt
Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 (Proposed Standard)
Note: Document Shepherd is Pete McCann
Token: Jari Arkko
Jari - had discussion with Lars about netmask prefix issue, has to be resolved, needs to be looked at. Lars have any opinion?
Lars - maybe the use of netmasks for mobile networks has already been specified in one of thousands of mobility drafts :-) about netmask vs prefix - in IPv4 you have a netmask, but we're missing something for IPv6.
Jari - error has crept into other documents that are existing RFCs
Lars - first time I've seen this error.
Jari - let this go through and fix everything?
Lars - 3344bis is going through now, could be opportunity to fix. If this document extends -bis draft, it's dependent on -bis draft.
Jari - always the case that we have to do this. have to look at details.
Cullen - normative dependency?
Russ - i think so (why I DISCUSSed), but it's informative.
Tim - was normative in previous version, somebody's review resulted in move to Informative
Russ - to avoid being blocked by dependency - wrong answer ;-)
o draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-07.txt
Extension Formats for Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and the Generic Stream Encapsulation (GSE) (Proposed Standard)
Token: Mark Townsley
Approved with no discussion on this call.
2. Protocol Actions
2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
o draft-melnikov-imap-search-res-07.txt
IMAP extension for referencing the last SEARCH result (Proposed Standard)
Note: AD is shepherding.
Token: Chris Newman
Ross - why is this individual? Always makes me nervous.
Russ - JUST cleared.
Chris - two groups doing IMAP. IMAPext is shutting down, never intended to be open-ended working group because of APP experience with such groups. MIGHT fit within LEMONADE scope but it's small and debatable that it's experimental - that's why it's individual.. Believe there is consensus behind this.
Ross - well-reviewed?
Chris - I've reviewed it, several implementers have reviewed it carefully. Main issue was results set.
Russ - do we have enough votes?
Amy - we have 8, need 10.
Chris - DEFER and missing ADs weigh in?
Ross - will DEFER to next telechat.
2.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3. Document Actions
3.1 WG Submissions
3.1.1 New Item
o draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-03.txt
Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix Environment: Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules (Informational)
Token: Ron Bonica
Ron - don't need to DISCUSS, move to AD followup.
Jari - this one needs revision. Review by me/Bob Hinden, both will require revision.
Ron - OK, revised ID needed.
Jari - asked whether there was enough review, wasn't IETF last called (doesn't need to be per rules, but is that right decision?). Who's actually looked at this? Some people in v6ops did, but did 6man people? Looked borderline. Fred's list looked minimally sufficient, but if you go revised ID, you can ask for review in the meanwhile. Ask 6man chairs to request on list now, if they haven't done so.
Amy - revised ID needed.
o draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt
Requirements for address selection mechanisms (Informational)
Token: Ron Bonica
Ron - also revised ID.
Cullen - can you enter my DISCUSS as well?
Ron - and add me as a YES, can't see the data tracker.
4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
NONE
4. Working Group Actions
o IDN charter
Lisa - some things to address in comments - has gone to DNS directorate, Thomas Narten, etc. Didn't schedule meeting in Philly because WG didn't exist, but may do something in APP Area. Some people come to IETF anyway, small design team. Community has increased due to office hours, now WG-sized community. Asking for WG before Philly.
Russ - schedule a BOF?
Lisa - have to find chair, not sure Vint can change schedule now. Vint will chair working group, but if he doesn't have time, I'll take the action to find one. I think work is basically done, if Thomas has time, he can co-chair.
Cullen - will strongly object to working group that doesn't meet with chair that doesn't come to meetings.
Jari - concerned about what people expect the plan to be, Thomas was surprised. ICANN is waiting for something in this space. Is everyone on board?
Lisa - I have some people pressuring for PS with Individuals because it's faster, other people pressuring for normal process. Trying to compromise.
Jari - I think you're doing the right thing, but if this is a surprise to Thomas, it's probably a surprise to others as well.
Lisa - please forward proposed charter text where you think you should, listening to early comments. Won't surprise ICANN or UNICODE, at least. Vint called informal meeting ("design team") of about a dozen people, worked very well.
Russ - think you're doing the right thing. Send for review and approve in next telechat.
Ross - have scheduled BOFs that turned into WGs before.
Russ - if we approve today, the charter will go out for review on Monday..
Cullen - haven't had answers to any of my questions.
Lisa - charter is presupposing 2003 solution.
Cullen - being told the opposite of this, but can't forward e-mail
Lisa - will be turnover. if you got e-mail more than a day ago, new drafts weren't posted. Vint walked back from proposal that involved IETF in political and linguistics stuff. 2003 solution wasn't complete, left out lots of characters (did not allow or disallow). Was supposed to give us experience that we could extend.
Cullen - but this changes the way we manage the 2003 solution space?
Lisa - yes, but it has to. 2003 didn't say how space would be managed, and people drew opposite conclusions from same documents. Revision to 3490 is non-controversial.
Cullen - but the way we're approving exceptions moves change control from UNICODE to IETF.
Lisa - what's left is category of symbols being accepted - music notations can't be domain names, etc.
Cullen - but we're overruling UNICODE with exceptions. We're pissed about ITU and TMPLS - how is this different for UNICODE? Everyone is surprised, no one knew we were taking this work seriously. Small group working privately, not addressed in other working groups, suddenly chartering the working group to rubberstamp documents - that may be the right thing to do, but it will be a surprise.
Jari - Thomas was expecting the work to go forward individually, was surprised by WG approach.
Cullen - there are people in the community who feel this way - I'm not saying that I do.
Lisa - lot of people on IDNA-update - 30 people?
Cullen - understand, just recognize that group self-selected.
Lisa - may be community that hope this work doesn't go forward, may late-object, may appeal. Want working group to handle this.
Jari - two telechats before IETF 71 - you still have time to discuss this in the IESG/IAB.
Lisa - pushing for WG for a year, got cooperation last week.
Jari - you can still get working group done in two weeks.
Lisa - almost all UNICODE characters will be legal, although communities can do anti-phishing themselves using registry policy, and may not just be doing anti-phishing. We try to base the list of invalid characters on UNICODE properties but that's not always possible. I think UNICODE database doesn't have properties that tell us what characters combine with periods.
Chris - UNICODE is cooperating with this effort - new property (if needed), etc. Demonstrates level of consensus behind this work. Also protocols tied to UNICODE version numbers is broken - apps can't figure this out.
Russ - replace chairs with TBD and send this out. We're going to hear stuff, need to start hearing it now.
Lisa - other improvements? Review namespaces without leaving barn doors open? Don't want WG to reject what it's formed with.
Russ - "basic approach will be maintained" - add something that points to specific new approach?
Lisa - "protocol" is difficult - should continue to be xn--
Russ - asking how to crack the barn door, this is about closing the barn door. Say what's open. Describe the degrees of freedom available.
(Some wordsmithing on call happened here).
Amy - hasn't gone for internal review yet. Can start today, one week, can send for external review next Friday to IESG and IAB.
Russ - IAB may very well have an opinion. Can Alexa nudge Lisa on Friday? (two ticklers)
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.2 Proposed for Approval
o Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (roll) - 1 of 2
Token: David Ward
Russ - is change in response to my comments?
David - just adding chairs and your change.
Amy - No objections to creation of this working group - approved.
Ross - scheduled for Philly?
Russ - not the usual way - send e-mail to agenda.
o Cga & Send maintenance (csi) - 2 of 2
Token: Jari Arkko
Jari - updated version has Russ's text. Steve Kent also had this issue (plus some stuff I needed to explain).
Amy - approved.
4. Working Group Actions
4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review
NONE
4. Working Group Actions
4.2 WG Rechartering
4.2.2 Proposed for Approval
o Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) (pkix) - 1 of 1
Token: Tim Polk
Russ - did you see comments posted by Denis Pinkas this morning?
Tim - comments fall into two camps - pkix has been around too long, or extraordinary level of wordsmithing - don't think proposed changes improve charter. Don't think details are relevant here. Does anyone have a problem if I move forward?
Amy - approved.
Tim - don't think any of the comments require a change to charter text.
5. IAB News We Can Use
Had Steward Bryant and Dave Ward on IAB call reporting on Seoul, meeting went the way we hoped it would, will shut down ad hoc group and restart with design team from routing/Internet areas.
IAB has request from ICANN to for help with JPA mid-term review agreement.
IAB is looking for technical plenary presentation, has something on low power-lossy networks but hope this will be TV distribution over the Internet.
Lars - Weird that we have plenary topic on proprietary protocol work. People are using proprietary protocols for IPTV. Expect this question would come up in plenary discussion.
Loa - thinking is that this is something that's going to happen - is happening in China, in France ...
Lars - concerned that this is already done - operator-driven deployment, or P2P?
Loa - have had examples from both camps.
6. Management Issues
6.1 RFC Errata (Russ Housley)
Russ - some people sent mail about this, others have not. Anything to add if you didn't send e-mail?
Tim - did not (and Sam is on leave).
Ron - looked at two, but didn't process them.
Dan - did more than two, but documented two.
Russ - no one was taking action, only asking what we WOULD have done. Didn't send logins to RFC Editor Errata website, so ADs couldn't actually take action.
Dan - do we have consensus about categories?
Russ - does everyone have an opinion? Pretty much. Where does Cullen think we are?
Cullen - recollection is that replies were all agreeing (after corrections) - at least converging.
Ross - differences on minor points.
Dave - different categories. Could you break summary into buckets? Really need collaborative tools that keep what we know and have buttons to approve/deny, etc. Something better than e-mail for a user interface.
Dan - thinking the same - something like the tracker would be appropriate, don't think we need much more - not ballots, just the tracking part of the tracker.
Chris - other thing we need is a place to track statements that have been made, that will be looked at if we ever revise the document. Need tracker if you have a real errata that's subtle, tricky, and important - think these are rare, real tracking tool isn't worth the cost.
Dave - need more than a bag. Have one RFC with 148 errata. Willing to start small, but the subject line of an e-mail isn't enough.
Cullen - propose that I write up two paths on tools - minimal change or using bugzilla, etc. for errata tracking.
Russ - agree with first path, think we should be extending general workflow to include IANA and RFC Editor aspects. Concerned that workflow will diverge.
Chris - agree with concern about total number of tools.
Russ - not going to write an overall workflow tool, but we might license one. Please do the first path, but we need to think about the second path some more. Can Cullen take the action on the first path?
Cullen - will start a thread on tools.
Dave - need identifier at a minimum - URL per-errata would be acceptable.
Cullen - how quickly? will give 50-percent estimate on two weeks, should have in four weeks.
Russ - we are going to have to talk about this in Philly, but we're done for now.
Cullen - think this will be an IESG statement, not an ION.
Russ - Tim still has action to process at least two errata for SEC-area specs. Will clear action item for other area directors.
6.2 Clarification of registration procedures for RFC 3688 (Michelle Cotton)
Michelle - just need clarification about FCFS with specifications, IETF consensus, etc.... same as Dan's issue?
Dan - probably related but not exactly the same. Ran into this in IRTF NMRG. IRTF people went with RFC, but it's an IRTF RFC. Now pushing back for *IETF* Last Call. Two issues - what we do with current document, and what we do with RFC 3688 errata.
Lisa - had similar question, was thinking about IESG statement but errata would work just as well.
Cullen - inconsistency in document - this is the issue Lisa is working on (just different document and different registry). "Must be RFC" is about the URN. This is the issue that led to my action item. Didn't send e-mail because I got this too late - will send e-mail.
Dan - proposed resolution was errata.
Lisa - errata proposed IETF consensus, or specification required?
Dan - keeps IETF consensus process ("must be documented in RFC that goes through IETF Last Call").
Lisa - what about the inconsistency? What if we went the other way ("specification required", even W3C, etc).
Dan - what about IETF documents?
Michelle - remember that "specification required" requires an expert review. Need to ensure specification is sufficient, etc. This is in 2434bis.
Lisa - was that intentional? I guess it would have to be...
Michelle - also confused because registry is FCFS but specification is required, there are two registries, which statement goes with which registry?
Lisa - can take this action item, I've been working in this area for last couple of years.
Dan - for specific document, does anyone object to running last call?
Lisa - think this is perfect, meets any possible requirements.
Dan - IRTF people concerned, want to make sure we last call the procedure, not their entire document.
Cullen - just request URN for IRTF? Seems cleaner. Lisa could write this in her sleep.
Russ - running out of time, need to go faster.
6.3 Should RFC 1701 be updated/obsoleted by RFC 2784? (Russ Housley)
Russ - no recollection of this... ah, need to ensure that question gets a response.
Dave - 2784 refers to 1701, so...
Cullen - contentious - people saying that non-standards-track documents should be obsoleted in favor of two standards-track documents. Response should be "RFC Editor, don't change anything".
Dave - problem is that we started at Informational with 1701 and then moved to standards-track. None of these documents are very long, and should just combine them all.
Mark - when we did this before, people took out stuff that wasn't implemented, but it HAD been implemented - had to produce another update. PPTP used a GRE-LIKE header, has been used in a lot of ways by a lot of people, may not be worth it.
Russ - Mark please take an action to tell us whether 2784 updates 1701.
Dave - good luck coming up with a definition.
6.4 URN allocation following RFC 3688 in an IRTF document (Dan Romascanu)
Was discussed under 6.2.
6.5 IDN Charter proposal (Lisa Dusseault)
Was discussed in 4.1.
6.6 ITU request for help
Russ - can Cullen draft response to note? Cullen will draft response for the chair. I don't want to get dragged into this.
Michelle - anything I should worry about?
Cullen - this is who has permission to change MEGACO, so I don't think so.
6.7 Continue with IONs?
Russ - Does anyone disagree with continuing? (No one disagreed)
Cullen - did you get support?
Russ - the people who said "not effective" also said "takes too long to get them approved".
6.8 TMPLS - Loa
Two upcoming meetings with ITU, IAB pretty happy with what's going on. Now getting to point where area directors can take over, disband ad hoc group and startup joint INT and RTG Area design team (not directorate).
Dave - two documents, one moved to supplement ("informational") and the other wasn't approved at all.
Loa - thought this was actually good - have to restart TMPLS because it's based on OAM.
Dave - all documents in SG15 have been moved out of approval chain, none will be consented until liaison is responded to. Have formed new design team in IETF, new ad hoc in ITU (to avoid process delays), joint working team/DMZ in the middle. Design team and ad hoc are open, working team in the middle is co-chaired by Dave and ITU peer. There are dates. Will get to option 1 or 2 by April 2008. Discussing face-to-face in April. About six working groups involved on IETF side, plus SGs on ITU side. Still working on assumption that we'll be working together. People are asking if we'll sign a positive press statement on option 2 if it's selected.
Russ - you may have just stepped in something.
Dave - they were asking about a positive spin, not about signing. Liaison statement interpreted with a negative spin, so they're working against that.
Russ - will do post-mortem on working with ITU (in general) during Philly IETF.
Dave - critical to talk through - FLOWSPEC, IPv6 etc. At least five other topics we need to work through.
Ross - encourage us to speak positively of either option, sometimes good fences make good neighbors.
6.9 How's the transition going?
(Ray Pelletier and Jim Galvin joined the telechat at this point)
Russ - a lot of work going on - update from Ray and Jim?
Jim - Cutover/shutdown went smoothly in the large, now in second-order issues, things are mostly working and we're plowing through details. Lots of scripts, tightly coupled, not clear how they interact or what versions to use.
Jim - ID-Submission actually works, two issues. "text" fix last night worked partially, have another fix, we're on top of this and think it's been taken care of. Issue with document editors - we think this works but other people don't. Many people have successfully submitted drafts.
Russ - people giving up and going to manual queue - isn't being processed.
Jim - also had issues with secretariat's submission tools. Known problem, plowing through, think we're past this.
Jim - working group tools today (meeting request, meeting management, etc.) - this is our next priority. Already worked through ID Tracker, reverted to older version Django and data tracker (major issue for a couple of days). Think we are together on high-priority items visible to the community.
Russ - Cullen and Ron still can't get into data tracker
(this seems to have been fixed after the telechat started)
Ross - still having e-mail problems?
Jim - not that we know of.
Russ - mail is flowing. Why does Ross ask?
Ross - confusion with IETF-action processing - will forward to Jim.
Jim - cut over the mailing lists without TMDA, this was additional work we couldn't get through (wasn't identified early by NSS). Had issues early in the week, also released spam that it shouldn't have. People on WGchairs list all said they wanted TDMA, said we would turn TMDA on but didn't say when.
Cullen - we have chairs at Nortel who are unscribed from their own lists because TMDA isn't installed. We're on Google's spam list, etc.
Jim - didn't have anything to do with Google. Spammers sending directly to bounce processor. No idea why NSS never had a problem with this, suspect we were whitelisted.
(additional spam processing discussion happened here, but the half-life of the facts is pretty short)
Jim will discuss with Scott about architecture. TMDA is "next on the list", but want to make sure it's still needed.
Jari - missing WG charters?
Jim - automation probably isn't working properly, and haven't figured that out yet.
Jari - changes were a couple of months ago - before transition, charters were there, but they changed in last 2-6 months - 6MAN, MEXT. Not critical, but needs to be fixed.
Amy - known issue with charters that haven't been approved yet.
Russ - we know you're working your tails off, and we appreciate it.
Cullen - no one expected this to work without hitches - within the envelope of what I expected.
Chris - interested in hearing where complexity crept into our infrastructure.
Russ - clear that complexity and configuration control need to be looked at.
Jim - Henrik and Bill have been very helpful, as well as the people on the test list. Will provide names who put in time and found problems.
Russ - want to say something in the plenary - please send me the names.
7. Working Group News We Can Use
Jari Arkko
- Liaison from 3GPP2 - would like to step down, need to find another person. Ideas? This is an IAB problem but want to have suggestions.
- Cullen - 3GPP liaison taking on both? Working out well.
- Jari - Gonzalo not connected to 3GPP2
Mark Townsley
- looking for DNSEXT chair, have requested nominations.