Alissa highlighted several recent IETF interactions with governments, including participation in the EU multi-stakeholder platform on ICT standards and the IAB response to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119.
Alissa noted that thus far, all of the interactions have been with governments in North America and Europe. The board discussed ways to broaden these discussions to include governments in Africa, Asia and South America. Russ noted that at IETF 83, ISOC ran a pilot program where government representatives from Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, and South Africa were invited to speak with IETF experts on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), with successful results. Lynn reported that ISOC is planning to continue the outreach program at IETF 84 in Vancouver. The IAB agreed to support ISOC in their outreach efforts.
The board discussed the IAB work plan for 2012, including what topics might be appropriate for new IAB Programs or Initiatives. The board agreed to continue the discussion later in the agenda [see 18. New Program/Initiative Discussion].
The board reviewed the Program and Initiative framework, using the following definitions:
PROGRAM: a long-term activity scoped and managed by the IAB that may have various deliverables over time.
INITIATIVE: a short-term activity that can be completed in <2 years (one tenure), usually resulting in an RFC, statement, or presentation.
The board discussed whether the current structure was working as expected, and concluded that while the Program model seemed to be working, the Initiative model was not working well. The board agreed to continue the discussion later in the agenda [see 18. New Program/Initiative Discussion].
The board reviewed the current tools being used by the IAB. Mary proposed an update to the current organization of the internal IAB wiki intended to make it easier to find relevant information quickly. Russ provided an update on the new draft tracker functionality designed for use by the IAB.
The board reviewed current procedures for external communications, and agreed that in order to improve transparency, future announcements will be sent to IETF-Announce as well as being posted on the IAB home page.
Alissa reviewed the Privacy Program goals for 2012-2013, which include publication of the Privacy Considerations and Terminology document(s) as RFCs by December 2012 and trying to encourage privacy directorate reviews of new drafts.
Alissa noted that the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) [http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/] has been working on a draft on “Privacy by Design in APIs” [[http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/privacy-by-design-in-
apis](http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/privacy-by-design-in- apis)] which may overlap with some of the work being done in the IAB Privacy Program. The Privacy Program is trying to organize a working relationship with the TAG; at the moment, communications are being handled through the W3C Privacy Interest Group (PING) [http://www.w3.org/2011/07/privacy-ig-charter].
Jon presented a draft abstract for the IETF 84 Technical Plenary on Software Defined Networking. Jon reported that he is in the process of confirming speakers for the panel session.
The board discussed potential new work which may fit in to the IP Evolution Initiative, including a Smart Object Statement. The board also discussed reorganizing the Initiative, possibly as a Program combined with work from the HTTP/Web Evolution Initiative, but agreed to defer that discussion until after a decision is reached on the fate of Initiatives. [See also 18. New Program/Initiative Discussion.]
Dave reviewed proposed updates to RFC 1123 and referred to the IAB Statement on The interpretation of rules in the ICANN gTLD Applicant Guidebook [http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-statement-the-interpretation-of-rules-in-the-icann-gtld-applicant-guidebook/].
Dave also noted that work on draft-iab-identifier-comparison is nearing completion, and that the Program is discussing a potential workshop on internationalization.
Hannes reported that the HTTP/Web Evolution Initiative currently has two unfinished items on its work plan. One is a document on post-standardization and another on the HTTP substrate. It was suggested that the last item be published within the IETF stream, so that it need not continue as an IAB work item. Given that only one item remains within the HTTP/Web Evolution Initiative the question arose as to whether the Initiative should be closed.
The plan for coordination between the W3C TAG and the IAB was discussed. It was suggested that the IAB speak again with the TAG to attempt to determine a potential date for a joint discussion. In particular this might make sense once plans for a potential Web Security Program are further along.
Lynn reported that an I* CEOs meeting is scheduled for May 31-June 1, with agenda topics to include SOPA/PIPA, WCIT and the changing role of SDOs. Representatives from ISOC, IETF, IAB, IEEE and W3C will attend the meeting.
Richard Barnes delivered a presentation on “Thoughts on Internet Filtering,” defining Internet filtering as denial of an Internet service to one of more hosts, accomplished via an intermediary system, usually without the knowledge or consent of the blocked service or affected hosts. Technical examples include RPKI certificate manipulation, DNS domain seizures, HTTP/HTTPS blocking, and spam blocking. Operational examples include commercial firewalls, proposed legislation like SOPA and PIPA, and revocation of rights to address blocks.
Richard asked whether this is an area where the IAB wants to do work, perhaps in providing guidance about how to safely engage in filtering. The board agreed to consider the topic as an IAB work item.
Jon reported that work is progressing on draft-iab-dns-applications, and noted that the document should be ready for Call for Comments once the latest round of updates has been made.
Olaf gave a brief overview of the IETF-IANA relationship, noting that the IETF website has been updated to include the current IANA Memorandum of Understanding and Supplemental Agreements [http://www.ietf.org/iana.html], as well as mirroring the Protocol Assignments Registries and Time Zone Database.
The U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) has sent out an RFP for the IANA contract. This is the second RFP; the original RFP was withdrawn in March. ICANN holds the current contract; they plan on submitting a proposal for the new contract, and have asked the IAB to fill out a performance evaluation questionnaire to submit with their proposal. The IANA Evolution Program team is working on a response to the questionnaire, and will send it to the board for approval at the IAB business meeting on 23 May 2012.
Hannes reported that the Emergency Services Initiative is continuing outreach to organizations active in emergency services. However so far it has only made contact with organizations in North America (NENA) and Europe (EENA). Potential contacts in Japan, Australia and New Zealand have been suggested on the mailing list. This still leaves the Initiative without contacts in Africa, Asia and South America. Lynn suggested that the Emergency Services Initiative speak to the guests invited to the ISOC pilot program at IETF 84 [see 1. Government Interactions].
One of the items on the Emergency Services Initiative charter was to further development of a high-level white paper on the IETF emergency services architecture, suitable for consumption by regulators. The question arose as to whether this was something the ISOC could help with. Mat agreed to check on this.
In term of recent developments, Hannes noted that there has been discussion within the Program about the importance of additional data (and draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data) in emergency services. Not only can additional data be helpful in saving lives (e.g., by providing information relevant to medical care), but it also may be relevant to accessibility concerns. Therefore additional data has come up as a topic within NENA as well as the FCC CSRIC.
Hannes noted that Gyula Bara is now responsible for Emergency Services in the
European Commission, and he seems interested in working with the IAB
Emergency Services Initiative.
Dan presented a brief overview of the current status of the IEEE-SA liaison. RFC 4441, RFC 4663 and RFC 5342 describe the current relationship; Dan noted that RFC 4441 (“The IEEE 802/IETF Relationship”) may be need to be updated. Issues that have arisen include mechanisms for allowing earlier review of proposed IETF WG Charters by IEEE 802, as well as the use of the New Work list.
The IEEE 802.1 [https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1153/] and the IESG [https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1155/] recently exchanged letters outlining current work and new proposals that relate to both IETF and IEEE 802.
The IEEE-SA and IETF/IAB leadership are planning a meeting in the Bay Area (California) on 25 July 2012, and it is likely that the list of related work will figure prominently in the discussion.
Harald described architectural issues uncovered by WebRTC. The current deployment of WebRTC has been tailored to a wide set of applications. Due to the need for new functionality as well as work required to enable realtime communication to be done securely within the browser, additions to realtime functionality are required which raise questions about interoperability with legacy deployments.
The bulk of interactive RTP today is not congestion controlled; with video becoming a larger percentage of the traffic, especially over wireless networks, the lack of congestion control is likely to be a serious problem. Unfortunately, there is presently no agreement on what solutions might work. In particular, the problem cannot be considered only for a single media, because one also has to consider how WebRTC media (audio, video, data) will compete with each other.
Cullen and Harald proposed holding an IAB workshop on WebRTC congestion control to clarify the problem statement, discuss possible solutions and think about how the IETF might organize the work. Lars noted that this might be related to work in the IRTF’s Internet Congestion Control Research Group (ICCRG). Bernard, Hannes, Jon, Lars and Spencer agreed to work with Cullen and Harald on a formal workshop proposal. Tentative date is 28 July 2012.
Cullen and Harald also plan to propose a BOF on the topic for IETF 84.
Eliot reported that work on draft-iab-rfc3356bis is ongoing. The draft is currently in Call for Comment until 25 May 2012, and then will go through comment resolution within the ITU-T Coordination Program. The current goal is to have the document approved by the IAB and the ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) by early July 2012.
The board discussed eliminating Initiatives, and moving the existing work into Programs (with the current definition modified to note that some Programs may have a limited time scope) and Action Items.
The board tentatively agreed to the following changes to the existing structure:
Changes to the Program structure will be discussed further at the next IAB Business Meeting on 16 May 2012.
The board discussed the structure of the Retreat, and agreed that future retreat agendas should be arranged to focus less on reporting and give more time for strategic discussions.