IESG Narrative Minutes

Narrative Minutes of the IESG Teleconference on 2009-02-12. These are not an official record of the meeting.

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

Corrections from: Cullen

1 Administrivia

1. Roll Call 1133 EDT Amy:
   • Loa Andersson--- regrets
   • Jari Arkko--- y
   • Marc Blanchet---
   • Ron Bonica--- y
   • Ross Callon--- y
   • Michelle Cotton--- y
   • Lisa Dusseault--- y
   • Lars Eggert--- y
   • Pasi Eronen--- y
   • Marshall Eubanks---
   • Sandy Ginoza--- regrets
   • Russ Housley---
   • Cullen Jennings--- y
   • Olaf Kolkman---
   • John Leslie--- y
   • Cindy Morgan--- y
   • Chris Newman--- y
   • Ray Pelletier---
   • Jon Peterson--- y
   • Tim Polk--- y
   • Dan Romascanu--- y
   • Mark Townsley--- y
   • Amy Vezza--- y
   • Dave Ward--- y
   • Magnus Westerlund--- regrets
2. Bash the Agenda
   • (no changes)
3. Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
   • January 29 minutes--- approved
   • January 29 narrative minutes--- approved with last-minute change by Tim
4. Review of Action Items from last Telechat
   • Magnus Westerlund to draft an IESG Statement on BCP 32.
   • Dave Ward to write up a project plan to document RSYNC
     Dave: draft is done, will make RSYNC an exception as discussed
   • Russ Housley and Dave Ward to write the BCP 115 Exception Last Call.
     Dave: plan is not to write it up, action item is done
   • Russ Housley to send the draft IESG statement on chartered work overcome by events before IESG consideration to the IETF community for comment.
     Amy: I think I have email saying this is done.

2 Protocol Actions

2.1 WG submission

2.1.1 - New Items

1. Dissemination of flow specification rules (Proposed Standard)
   draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-05.html
   Token: David Ward
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: number of open, Ron: yes, Cullen: no-pos, Jon: no-pos, Dan: waiting, maybe will enter own discuss;
   • Dave: save IPR issues for discussion under mgmt items; technical issues in discussion with authors, revised-ID needed; charter-update question open
   • Cullen: sometimes charter-update is just time-waster, in this case don't know
   • Dan: WG can't be allowed to take on just anything
   • Dave: this fell through the cracks on last IDR charter update
   • Dan: should charter-update process be expedited
   • Dave: there may be folks who think we should not take on this work
   • Lars: not clear that BGP is a good solution for this problem; other protocols for this do exist
   • Dave: this is widely deployed and has been out there for years; businesses depend on this
   • Lars: what about bits not defined properly; don't like standardizing a bad solution
   • Dave: world's largest networks use this to block DDoS; we have groups that don't allow progression to Proposed Standard without implementations
   • Lars: OK for DDoS, bad idea for routing-on-ports
   • Dave: this passes ACL entries in BGP updates
   • Lisa: what about making this Informational?
   • Dave: if this wasn't a core technology, we could do that
   • Ron?: how about taking this as a work item in OPS
   • Dave: health warnings would make sense; ACL format is ten-years old and doesn't fit well; OPSEC work there
   • Ron: how about "version-2 ACL format coming soon"?
   • Dan: will put in non-blocking comment asking for OPSEC charter items
   • Dave: will draft one-line charter update in jabber
   • Amy: revised-ID needed
2. A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric (Proposed Standard)
   draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-07.html
   Token: Lars Eggert
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy open, Ron:Q no-obj, CullenQ no-pos
   • Lars: all issues look reasonable, authors need to respond, authors claim it's "obvious" what it means for packets to be identical
   • revised-ID needed

2.1.2 Returning Items

1. ForCES Protocol Specification (Proposed Standard)
   draft-ietf-forces-protocol-21.html
   Token: Ross Callon
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: open Jari: no-pos, Pasi: no-pos; discuss by Magnus, not here
   • Ross: continue discussion by email; AD-followup (don't know whether revised ID will be needed)
2. The RPF Vector TLV (Proposed Standard)
   draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-08.html
   Token: David Ward
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: one open, not here; no discusses, approved

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Items

1. IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) (Proposed Standard)
   draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-06.html
   Token: Russ Housley
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: Ron: no-obj; no discusses
   • Jari: may be issue about connected work needed
   • Cullen: does this change anything, if not, don't call it an update
   • Jari: namespace overlap
   • Cullen: do they have to be aware of it.
   • Lisa: backwards reference can be in the draft, update makes old documents point forward
   • Jari: how do we even find the newer document
   • Amy: I'm not hearing an objection, any notes
   • Jari: not that I'm aware of
   • Amy: approved, announcement to be sent

2.2.2 Returning Items

1. (none)

3 Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions

3.1.1 New Items

1. Downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization (Experimental)
   draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-11.html
   Token: Chris Newman Note: Harald Alvestrand is document shepherd
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: a discuss
   • Chris: agree with Pasi, need to take this back to authors, there's no way to do human-friendly that's reversible, this will probably be stuck at Experimental
   • Cullen: not a very good applicability statement; marked as Experimental is likely enough
   • Chris: expectations vary, but I think the experiment will convince folks; maybe RFCed note, AD-followup
2. Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network (Informational)
   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.html
   Token: Ross Callon
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: a discuss
   • Ross: Tim sent proposed text, WGC says that's fine
   • Tim: I'll clear
   • Amy: approved-point-raised
3. Description of the RSVP-TE Graceful Restart Procedures (Informational)
   draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.html
   Token: Ross Callon
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: no discusses, approved, no notes

3.1.2 Returning Items

1. Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services (Informational)
   draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-07.html
   Token: Mark Townsley
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: discusses
   • Mark: Tim, authors made significant changes to security section
   • Tim: I'll do that before the end of the call; Ron:
   • Ron: don't remember well
   • Tim: 2007, MAC learning, is there something specific about multicast
   • Ron: I'll clear -- I don't remember what I was concerned about
   • Tim: I'll try to clear by the end of the call
   • Amy: come back to this a bit later
   • ...
   • Tim (right before break): I've cleared
   • Mark: no notes needed
   • Amy: approved

3.2 Individual Submissions via AD

3.2.1 New Items

1. (none)

3.2.2 Returning Items

1. (none)

3.3 Independent Submissions via RFC Editor

3.3.1 New Items

1. Analysis of Inter-Domain Routing Requirements and History (Historic)
   draft-irtf-routing-history-09.html
   Token: Ross Callon
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: no discusses, back to IRTF with approval note, but...
   • Ross: clear that it's documenting history, the 2001 consensus they documented is not the consensus I observed then; authors agreed to a reviewers-note (an RFCed note), is there better way
   • Amy: we don't send them to RFCed
   • Ross: change to IRTF note? Or should I ask authors to re-issue? I'll send email to Aaron and authors
   • Ron: I'll enter a discuss and clear as soon as it's re-issued
   • Amy: documents back to the IRTF
2. A Set of Possible Requirements for a Future Routing Architecture (Historic)
   draft-irtf-routing-reqs-10.html
   Token: Ross Callon
   (Balloting not available to scribe before telechat)

   Telechat:

   • Ron: same as previous document

3.3.2 Returning Items

1. (none)

1225 EDT break

1231 EDT back

• Loa Andersson---
• Jari Arkko--- y
• Marc Blanchet---
• Ron Bonica--- y
• Ross Callon--- y
• Michelle Cotton--- y
• Lisa Dusseault--- y
• Lars Eggert--- y
• Pasi Eronen--- y
• Marshall Eubanks---
• Sandy Ginoza---
• Russ Housley---
• Cullen Jennings--- y
• Olaf Kolkman---
• John Leslie--- y
• Cindy Morgan--- y
• Chris Newman--- y
• Ray Pelletier---
• Jon Peterson--- y
• Tim Polk--- y
• Dan Romascanu--- y
• Mark Townsley--- y
• Amy Vezza--- y
• Dave Ward--- y
• Magnus Westerlund---

4 Working Group Actions

4.1 WG Creation

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review

1. (none)

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval

1. (none)

4.2 WG Rechartering

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review

1. IDR (added during telechat)
2. Dave: one sentence charter update posted
3. Amy: internal review required: IESG, IAB, WGCs; where in charter did you want to add this sentence?
4. Dave: dash-progress right above goals
5. Amy: can revisit next week

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

1. (none)

5. IAB News We can use

1. Jari?: not a lot, considering message to SSS?, not decided yet
2. Cullen: SSS is not a SDO, no formal liaison is appropriate
3. Ross: clear that people can't just declare themselves liaisons
4. Dave: more liaisons to ITU, how TMPLS to be described

6. Management Issues

1. late IPR declarations (Jari Arkko)

   Telechat:

   • Jari: seemed to be converging on text, expecting a few minor changes
   • Cullen: what do people think this says? just waters down a BCP
   • Dave: unclear what responsibility it tries to impose or what happens if they don't
   • Ron: engineers go to legal department, without clear numbers in the language, legal will put it off as long as possible
   • Jari?: explain what happens if IPR disclosure comes late in process -- thought that's what we're trying to do
   • Dave: we don't have any binding statement, nor can we do anything beyond finger-waving
   • Lisa: shouldn't have rules asking us to e.g. troll patent sites; you can discipline an offender and blame me
   • Dave: without IESG consensus, I'll just send it back through WGLC
   • Lisa: don't want to encourage putting it off past IESG approval; our process works fine for truly ignorant non-disclosure
   • Jon: are we just generating an incentive to file disclosures during a brief period (instead of as soon as possible)
   • Lisa: is anyone else upset that a WGC violates our rule on IPR disclosures
   • Cullen: we should either take the rule seriously or change it
   • Jon: what IETF actually does is disclaim knowledge of IPR
   • Lisa: IETF leadership is biased, we should have rules closer to Open Source groups
   • Dave: current rules say you need to update, not retract IPR
   • Ron: three IPR disclosures fell in that bucket -- we (Juniper) screwed up
   • Jari: higher-level issue, we shouldn't make the rules, but deal with how to follow them
   • Dave: three possible actions. One, send back to WGLC
   • Jari: "punishment" for late filing vs. "more information"
   • Jon: what tools does a WG have to evaluate IPR claims? what do we accomplish by sending it back to them?
   • Jari?: WG participants can take it to a (corporation) legal team
   • Ron: needs to go back to WG to see if they still want to progress it
   • Dave: Second, someone responsible to ensure known IPR is disclosed; I believe that's not reasonable
   • Cullen: Proto writeup could include statement whether there's known IPR
   • Dave: what are we asking someone to do to accomplish that task?
   • Tim: at WGLC (and other times) remind participants about IPR filing, WGC is in best position to put that question
   • Dave: should that go into LC boilerplate?
   • Jari?: in this case WGC could have talked to authors -- "please check whether it's done"
   • Cullen: do we want to decide what "late" means? or incentives to get people to disclose?
   • Ron: in many case it's ignorance: lawyers interpret rules minimally; e.g. ICMP-unnumbered, I had no idea someone else in my company had filed patent application
   • Dan: you are not in violation if you don't know
   • Jon: that's a gaping loophole, "honest, judge, I didn't know"
   • Dan: we can't close that loophole
   • Dave: with respect to flowspec, do folks believe I should send that back to WGLC... OK, I will
   • Dave: what do you want as discipline for the late-filer?
   • Ron: I made the same mistake before, or should I stay recused?
   • Ron: in a big company, you can only disclose when your lawyers say you can: a sternly worded letter to take back to the lawyers will work better than shooting him
   • Cullen: our rules prevent participating if you know of of undisclosed IPR
   • Chris: lawyers think in terms of reducing risk
   • Dave: I'll send back to WGLC and publicly admonish the WGLC; a repetition would lead to removal from position
   • Ron: think like a lawyer...
   • Mark: certain cost to last-minute surprises
   • Jon: think of how we could incent folks to do things right
   • Cullen: late disclosure slows things down
   • Mark: case law can reduce enforcability of patent by not following SDO disclosure rules
   • Ross: people have vague understanding of rules and assume that the lawyers will know better
   • Lisa: time to draft text, I volunteer to take the pen. should I go beyond the present case?
   • Dave: Juniper legal ought to apologize
   • Lisa: Blame shouldn't go to lawyers, but participants
   • Ross: engineers don't want to read long list of RFCs they "agree" to -- rather trust lawyers
   • Jon: danger of confusing people more, judgment call whether a patent applies -- even with patent text you can't always tell; two extremes are much easier to understand than our middle ground; unsure whether sending this kind of statemnt will help or hurt
   • Dave: "polishing the jagged edge" won't help
   • Jon: case-by-case is better, shouldn't put a stake in the ground
   • Jari: time to move on, "discussed"
2. Document Submission cutoff for IETF 74 (Tim Polk)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: 5378 problem...
   • Tim: three dates we might consider moving back,
   • Cullen: think we'll be overcome by events, expect Trustee statement very soon; revisit in two weeks
   • Amy: tabled until 26th
3. IESG Statement on Activities that are OBE (Russ Housley)

   Telechat:

   • Amy: Russ not here; discussed
4. Potential Notes in EAP-FAST Documents (Tim Polk)

   Telechat:

   • Tim: discussion on EMU list, alternative text submitted 10th that Microsoft and Cisco can live with; documenting current use, but don't reuse in future, notes are wordy, nothing about changing codes but more description about the problems, at least they're well-documented and folks will know what they're dealing with; not pushing for decision today
   • Cullen: we need to publish something; I would have put a discuss on cisco reservation much earlier had I been aware of it
   • Tim: I think there seems to be rough consensus; I'll wait a week and send two IETF notes to Secretariat, hold for terminology on confusing term.
   • Amy: discussed, we'll wait for a couple of tickets
5. Request for ATOM Link Relation [IANA #209057] (Michelle Cotton)

   Telechat:

   • (taken up as first mgmt item)
   • Lisa: sent to mailing list for discussion, should reject the one trying to define "scheme"; approve "described-by"
   • Amy: notes to IANA, reject 209057, approve 221766 (separate notes)
6. ATOM Link Relations requests [IANA #221766] (Michelle Cotton)

   Telechat:

   • (discussed above)
7. Virtual Interim Meetings (Dan)

   Telechat:

   • Dan: requirements clear to me, but at least one case didn't meet them; propose note to remind WGCs, but let the already-announced virtual meetings proceed
   • Cullen: do they need to notify the AD?
   • Dan: obligation to announce on the list, assume AD reads it
   • Amy: discussed

7. Agenda Working Group News

• Jari Arkko (Internet)---
• Ron Bonica (O & M)--- none
• Ross Callon (Routing)--- difference of opinion in MANET about rural environment, think it's resolved
  Dave: rechartering should complete in a couple of weeks
  Ross: thanks, Dave
• Lisa Dusseault (Applications)--- none
• Lars Eggert (Transport)--- none
• Pasi Eronen (Security)--- pass
• Russ Housley (General)---
• Cullen Jennings (RAI)--- pass
• Chris Newman (Applications)--- pass
• Jon Peterson (RAI)--- pass
• Tim Polk (Security)--- pass
• Dan Romascanu (O & M)--- pass
• Mark Townsley (Internet)---
• Dave Ward (Routing)--- pass
• Magnus Westerlund (Transport)---

Amy: testing WebEx in two weeks
Cullen: Dave Ward will be setting that up

1421 EDT Adjourned