IESG Narrative Minutes

Narrative Minutes of the IESG Teleconference on 2008-06-05. These are not an official record of the meeting.

Narrative scribe: John Leslie (The scribe was often uncertain who was speaking.)

Corrections from: Russ Housley

1 Administrivia

  1. Roll Call 1134 EDT Amy:
  2. Bash the Agenda
  3. Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
  4. Review of Action Items from last Telechat

2 Protocol Actions

2.1 WG submission

2.1.1 - New Items

  1. Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3 (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-11.txt
    Token: David Ward
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Comment [2008-06-03]: does not specify what type of IPv6 address is legal or illegal...
    2. Pasi Eronen: Comment [2008-06-04]: RFC 2119 "MAY" in Section 4; Reference [OSPFV3] question
    3. Tim Polk: Comment [2008-06-04]: secdir review noted two issues that really should get addressed.
    4. Dan Romascanu: Discuss [2008-06-05]: missing information concerning manageability

    Telechat:

  2. Two-Document ballot (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16.txt
    draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-04.txt
    Token: David Ward
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Discuss [2008-06-04]: one simple mistake (Minlen & Maxlen)
      Comment [2008-06-04]: two small edits
    2. Lars Eggert: Comment [2008-06-04]: RFC2119 terms: SHOULD vs. MUST, etc.; some citations
    3. Pasi Eronen: Comment [2008-06-04]: SecDir review: need to apply the filters locally?
    4. Russ Housley: Comment [2008-06-03]: removing ORF entries
    5. Tim Polk: Comment [2008-06-05]: security considerations section lacks a reference to the unchanged information
    6. Dan Romascanu: Discuss [2008-06-04]: should include a list of any configuration or statistics objects that must be part of the instrumentation...

    Telechat:

  3. Format for using TLVs in PIM messages (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-03.txt
    Token: David Ward
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Discuss [2008-06-03]: one error (address field is variable length)
      Comment [2008-06-03]: can an attribute can disable processing of any attributes after itself?
    2. Ron Bonica: Comment [2008-06-03]: Support Jari's DISCUSS
    3. Lisa Dusseault: Comment [2008-06-03]: expand acronym
    4. Lars Eggert: Comment [2008-06-04]: Doesn't describe IANA allocation procedure for new values
    5. Russ Housley: Discuss [2008-06-03]: need response to Gen-ART Review
    6. Chris Newman: Comment [2008-06-04]: "TBD" scattered throughout the text -- good idea to tell the RFC editor
    7. Tim Polk: Discuss [2008-06-04]: (preliminary) expected to see [security concerns] references to RFC 5015 and 3973...
      security directorate review -- three specific issues not addressed

    Telechat:

  4. SEC Textual Conventions for Syslog Management (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-syslog-tc-mib-08.txt
    Token: Pasi Eronen
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Discuss [2008-06-02]: a MUST requirement that may be ambiguous
      Comment [2008-06-02]: mix of numbers and names in listing the Facilities

    Telechat:

  5. Two-Document ballot (BCP & Informational)
    draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-09.txt
    draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-06.txt
    Token: Russ Housley
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Comment [2008-05-21]: The legend URL is currently non-existent.
    2. Lisa Dusseault: Comment [2008-06-03]: definition of "RFC" (section 1.k) implies that all RFCs are IETF documents
    3. Lars Eggert: Comment [2008-05-21]: [empty]
    4. Cullen Jennings: Discuss [2008-06-04]: (maybe my confusion)
      1. how do outbound rights allow a person to create a bis version?
      2. can we, e.g., take email contributions and include them in a draft? Hard to understand some restrictions...
      3. it seems we need the Trust to grant the right to create derivative works: not clear that this is provided in outbound
      4. In outbound, the term contributions never seems to be defined
      5. does outbound section 4.2 cover Contributions or only IETF documents?
      6. outbound section 4.3: Clearly we don't want people to be able to use it in a way that removes the liability limitation in license legend.
      Comment [2008-06-04]: good to add an appendix that contains the initial text that needs to be placed at the legends URL
      outbound, section 4.3: consider adding "pseudo code" to the list
      Section 4.5 of outbound may need to be more explicit - perhaps an example.
    5. Tim Polk: Comment [2008-06-05]: support adding [WG charters] to the definition for "Contribution"; iab has requested that iab stream be in scope; can't find a reference that clearly specifies that -iesg documents are in scope

    Telechat:

  6. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-bfd-base-08.txt
    Token: Ross Callon
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Lars Eggert: Discuss [2008-06-04]: BFD is congestion-unresponsive... BFD aims to be a generic protocol... cannot simply punt on congestion control
      Comment [2008-06-04]: mailing-list no longer appropriate
    2. Russ Housley: Discuss [2008-06-04]: IANA has questions
      Comment [2008-06-04]: should indicate intended status; s/must/MUST/; Section 6.6 wording
    3. Chris Newman: Discuss [2008-06-05]: If password is human enterred, need to state a charset and any mandatory-to-implement preparation
      need to define the key management for keys

    Telechat:

  7. BFD for Multihop Paths (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-06.txt
    Token: Ross Callon
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Discuss [2008-06-05]: lacks detail on encapsulation of the echo packets; should provide guidance on how BFD endpoints should deal with congestion across a path; should decide how applicable BFD documents are for the general Internet use
    2. Lars Eggert: Comment [2008-06-04]: My congestion-control DISCUSS on the base document is especially relevant to multi-hop paths
    3. Pasi Eronen: Discuss [2008-06-03]: How would BFD Echo work on multihop paths?
      Comment [2008-06-03]: say port 4784 has already been assigned by IANA
    4. Russ Housley: Discuss [2008-06-04]: following SecDir Review, appeared to be agreement to add text to Security Considerations

    Telechat:

  8. BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop) (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-08.txt
    Token: Ross Callon
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Discuss [2008-06-05]:
      1. support Pasi's discuss and want to track its resolution.
      2. wonder how this can be made to work at all, except in very special circumstances; question what the special conditions must be; need to discuss applicability of in the general Internet
    2. Lars Eggert: Discuss [2008-06-04]: Source ports for control packets have earlier been defined to be in the range of 49152-65535, can the same rule be applied here?
    3. Pasi Eronen: Discuss [2008-06-03]: need some more text about how BFD Echo packets are actually sent
      Section 4.2 does not mention ND Redirects
      Comment [2008-06-03]: soy ports 3784 and 3785 have already been assigned by IANA
    4. Russ Housley: Comment [2008-06-05]: title page header should indicate intended status; Gen-ART Review and SecDir Review both point out need to clarify second paragraph in section 2

    Telechat:

  9. Generic Application of BFD (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-bfd-generic-04.txt
    Token: Ross Callon
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Discuss [2008-06-05]: had expected more information about WHEN BFD can be applied and in particular when it cannot
    2. Lars Eggert: Comment [2008-06-04]: mailing-list no longer appropriate
    3. Pasi Eronen: Comment [2008-06-05]: SecDir review clarification/editorial changes should be fixed
    4. Dan Romascanu: Discuss [2008-06-05]: concerned about whole set of BFD documents brought today
      1. could find no information about operational considerations
      2. section 8: unclear what 'more aspects' are exercised
      3. would like clearer description of the interaction of BFD with management systems
      4. believe that there is a need to define a high level protocol independent information model for management

    Telechat:

  10. BFD For MPLS LSPs (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-05.txt
    Token: Ross Callon
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Discuss [2008-06-05]: agree with Pasi's Discuss.
      I do not think removing the RFC 1122 requirement on not using 127/8 on the wire is appropriate in general
    2. Pasi Eronen: Discuss [2008-06-03]: Using 127/8 addresses violates a MUST in RFC 1122
      I can't find text saying how BFD Echo works in MPLS
      Comment [2008-06-03]: SecDir review had some editorial fixes and suggestions
    3. Russ Housley: Discuss [2008-06-05]: do not actually see a response that deals with the content of Carlos Pignataro Last Call comments;
      per Gen-ART Review, it is unlcear whether BFD Demand mode is allowed (Section 6);
      per Gen-ART Review, What is supposed to happen in an IPv6-only environment? (Section 6);
      Comment [2008-06-05]: title page header should indicate intended status
    4. Tim Polk: Comment [2008-06-05]: I expected to find an MPLS specific BFD ECHO packet format.

    Telechat:

  11. Resource ReSerVation Protovol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services (Proposed Standard)
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-08.txt
    Token: Magnus Westerlund
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Ross Callon: Discuss [2008-06-04]: It seems to me that this relies on RSVP signaling, thus on the router alert option, which most ISPs don't allow...
      if this capability were widely deployed, routers would need to accept router alerts coming from whereever the emergency provider happens to be... a vector for DOS
    2. Pasi Eronen: Discuss [2008-06-03]: Section 1 needs clarifications about scope and applicability
    3. Cullen Jennings: Discuss [2008-06-04]: don't understand how authorization would work outside of a transitive trust walled garden environment
    4. Tim Polk: Comment [2008-06-05]: I support Ross's concerns regarding the router alerts and resulting security vulnerabilities
    5. Dan Romascanu: Discuss [2008-05-22]: applicability of extensions defined in this document is not described in terms consistent with other IETF work
    6. Mark Townsley: Comment [2008-06-05]: I support the discuss comments about the use of router alert options.
    7. David Ward: Comment [2008-06-04]: I am abstaining for reasons that Ross and Ron outlined.

    Telechat:

2.1.2 Returning Items

  1. (none)

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Items

  1. Contexts for IMAP4 (Proposed Standard)
    draft-cridland-imap-context-05.txt
    Token: Chris Newman Note: Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. (none)

    Telechat:

  2. Sieve Email Filtering: Date and Index Extensions (Proposed Standard)
    draft-freed-sieve-date-index-12.txt
    Token: Lisa Dusseault
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Jari Arkko: Comment [2008-06-02]: I would change the parameter order in the examples to match the syntax.
    2. Chris Newman: Comment [2008-06-03]: A few issues I noticed while reviewing this: Section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

    Telechat:

2.2.2 Returning Items

  1. (none)

3 Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions

3.1.1 New Items

  1. Host Threats to Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) (Informational)
    draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-04.txt
    Token: David Ward
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Tim Polk: Discuss [2008-06-04]: (discuss-discuss) document references sparse mode and bidirectional PIM, but not dense mode.

    Telechat:

  2. ECC Support for PKINIT (Informational)
    draft-zhu-pkinit-ecc-04.txt
    Token: Tim Polk
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Russ Housley: Comment [2008-06-05]: Please update reference to point to RFC 5280
    2. Chris Newman: Comment [2008-06-03]: normative reference to the publication of a consortium with only one listed member seems questionable

    Telechat:

3.1.2 Returning Items

  1. (none)

3.2 Individual Submissions via AD

3.2.1 New Items

  1. Atom Bidirectional Attribute (Experimental)
    draft-snell-atompub-bidi-06.txt
    Token: Lisa Dusseault
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Lars Eggert: Comment [2008-05-20]: Why didn't this come through the ATOMPUB WG?
    2. Pasi Eronen: Comment [2008-05-19]: considerations text should have a pointer to UTR #36
    3. Russ Housley: Comment [2008-05-19]: Suggestion: come up with a shorter reference handle for: [W3C.REC-xml-names-19990114]
    4. Cullen Jennings: Discuss [2008-06-04]: should specify what takes precedence when there is both unicode control character and a bidi attribute;
      should specify what takes precedence when there is html with internal bidi control indication along with an atom level bidi attribute.
      Comment [2008-06-04]: Would be great to have a specific example of where this was needed.
    5. Chris Newman: Discuss [2008-05-21]: cover the case of "dir" attribute with an empty-string value
      Comment [2008-05-21]: look forward to results from the experiment.

    Telechat:

  2. A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) (Informational)
    draft-monrad-sipping-3gpp-urn-namespace-02.txt
    Token: Lisa Dusseault
    Balloting
    Ballot Comments:
    1. Pasi Eronen: Comment [2008-06-03]: References [RFC1123] and [RFC3958] not actually cited; remaining references should be normative
    2. Cullen Jennings: Comment [2008-06-04]: disturbing that the plan is to have non unique URN in some case;
      hope this work replaces draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn and that we will not be seeing two requests here.

    Telechat:

3.2.2 Returning Items

  1. (none)

3.3 Independent Submissions via RFC Editor

3.3.1 New Items

  1. (none)

3.3.2 Returning Items

  1. (none)

1254 EDT break

1300 EDT back

4 Working Group Actions

4.1 WG Creation

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review

  1. (none)

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval

  1. Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP (drinks)
    Token: Jon

    Telechat:

4.2 WG Rechartering

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review

  1. Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)
    Token: Ross

    Telechat:

  2. Path Computation Element (pce)
    Token: Ross

    Telechat:

  3. Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)
    Token: Ross

    Telechat:

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

  1. EAP Method Update (emu)
    Token: Pasi

    Telechat:

5. IAB News We can use

  1. Amy: neither Loa nor Olaf here

6. Management Issues

  1. Shepherding NAT-PT (Mark Townsley)

    Telechat:

  2. p2p BOF

    Telechat:

7. Agenda Working Group News

1425 EDT Adjourned