IESG Narrative Minutes

Narrative Minutes of the IESG Teleconference on 2014-10-02. These are not an official record of the meeting.

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

Corrections from: Spencer

1 Administrivia

1. 1133 EDT Amy: Call to order; attendance from WebEx Participants list:
   • Jari Arkko--- +
   • Alia Atlas--- +
   • Richard Barnes--- +
   • Mary Barnes--- +
   • Benoit Claise--- +
   • Alissa Cooper--- +
   • Michelle Cotton---
   • Spencer Dawkins--- dialed in; not in WebEx
   • Adrian Farrel--- +
   • Stephen Farrell---
   • Heather Flanagan--- regrets
   • Sandy Ginoza--- +
   • Brian Haberman--- +
   • Susan Hares---
   • Russ Housley--- +
   • Joel Jaeggli--- +
   • Nagendra Kumar---
   • Barry Leiba--- +
   • Ted Lemon--- +
   • John Leslie---
   • Cindy Morgan--- +
   • Kathleen Moriarty--- +
   • Ray Pelletier--- regrets
   • Carlos Pignataro---
   • Pete Resnick--- +
   • Martin Stiemerling--- +
   • Amy Vezza--- +
2. Guests:
   • (none)
3. Observers:
   • Mike Jones +
   • Paul Kyzivat +
   • Karen O’Donaghue +
   • Tom Taylor +
   • Dave Crocker +
   • Ning Zong +
4. Bash the Agenda
   • Amy: any new? any other changes? Adrian moved a doc from Experimental to PS
5. Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat
   • September 18 minutes--- approved
   • September 18 narrative minutes--- not received yet
6. Review of Action Items from last Telechat
   • Martin Stiemerling to find a designated expert for the Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Parameters registry
     Martin: done, finally
   • Pete Resnick and Spencer Dawkins to develop a proposal about using the new IRTF-proposed room format for some small working groups during IETF-92. The proposal is needed for some discussion in APPSAREA and other places during IETF-91, and then a later post after IETF-91 to the WG chairs list
     Pete: proposal done, still being discussed
   • Joel Jaeggli to write up IESG thoughts on further development of scribing and tools
     Joel: still in progress
   • Barry Leiba to find additional media types IANA experts
     still working on it

2. Protocol Actions

2.1 WG Submissions

2.1.1 New Items

• draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms

  Telechat:

  • Amy: unknown consensus, number of discusses; does anyone want to state positions now (no)
  • Kathleen: a lot came in last night, Richard
  • Richard: we can let the authors respond
  • Kathleen: Stephen? Pete?
  • Pete: let’s talk about implementation requirements
  • Stephen?: WG talked about this endlessly; do we have a reason to override the WG?
  • Pete: what was the reason for their conclusion to keep these in
  • Stephen? if you pick up a library from somewhere it’s more likely to be compatible
  • Barry: mumble
  • Kathleen: we got a response from Mike on this…
  • Pete: I haven’t seen it yet
  • Barry: looks like Mike is on the call, if we can un-mute him
  • Kathleen: it’s a light answer…
  • Pete: way forward, let’s get the WG reasoning… I take it there are documents showing why particular algorithms are good or bad
  • Stephen: there are a lot of combinations here; if we’re careless we’ll end up with poor choices grandfathered in
  • Richard?: I’d be fairly OK with this if we just changed the Required to Recommended
  • Pete: let’s get a summary from either Mike or the chairs
  • Kathleen: Stephen’s points
  • Stephen: like to give Designated Experts some guidance
  • Barry: I don’t think added wording will have much effect
  • Richard?: general guidance would help
  • Amy: revised-ID? (yes)

• draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption

  Telechat:

  • Amy: unknown consensus, couple of discusses
  • Kathleen: Richard?
  • Richard: a request I’ve gotten from multiple implementors: I think it’s reasonable to ask for discussion by the authors or WG
  • Pete: the other discuss should be taken up under signing
  • Kathleen: revised-ID needed… I think all these will be revised-ID needed

• draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key

  Telechat:

  • Amy: no consensus, we have discussed
  • Kathleen: the big point is member-name discussion; that discussion came up multiple times… lengthy discussion; language not tight enough; WG best answer is work-in-progress, can’t point to it yet
  • Richard?: one of the options is “parse it anyway”… trying to fix malformed input is not a good idea
  • Pete: I’d be OK with adjusting wording to be less ambiguous; JSON will be in a memory data-structure; there are some parsing libraries that ignore duplicate names and keep blasting… you’d better use a library that rejects multiple names; make sure your application picks one
  • Kathleen: the reference points to a doc which states use-the-last-one
  • Richard: we’ve had problems in the past with ambiguity
  • Kathleen: this is coming out of another spec
  • Barry: what happens if I use a parser which gives me the first instead of the last? you have no idea which was intended, you don’t know if it put the right one first
  • Pete: if the implementation uses an ECMA library, it’ll put the right one last; I think giving the option is fine… I just have a wording issue: it confuses right with which lib
  • Richard?: there used to be a requirement for no duplicates, but it was removed because not all parsers checked for duplicates
  • Kathleen: mumble, leave it as is, or come up with a recommendation; do we need to discuss any other points? Stephen, case-sensitivity?
  • Stephen: mumble
  • Richard: no specification of what “common name” means
  • Russ: email name would be a better example
  • Kathleen: Stephen points out strings… anything else? We’ll do the rest in email
  • Amy: revised-ID needed

• draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-signature

  Telechat:

  • Amy: consensus unknown; discusses
  • Kathleen: came in last night, Pete, whether it’s required… a few cases… Alissa as well, do we need to adjust this?
  • Pete: there are clearly places which need TLS; but these things can be used in environments where there is no transport-level TLS; not appropriate as a separate place for the whole document
  • Kathleen: Stephen?
  • Stephen: I don’t care if we move text if it accomplishes the same thing
  • Pete: there are loads of case which will have no TLS
  • Kathleen: we’ll get the WG to weigh in on this… Richard?
  • Richard: my discuss is pretty much the same thing… mumble… Pete:
  • Pete: two other things, one is the reject protocol; I’m fine with your message to the list: it carries no semantic information by itself, but you don’t have to throw away the data to conform to the spec
  • Richard: I think it’s a lot riskier
  • Pete: an example: it absolutely refuses to show you the data; in DKIM, mumble
  • Kathleen: if we take out that kind of language, we’ll have to have warnings; don’t know if there are privacy issues
  • Pete: this about application-layer parsing of a particular data structure
  • Barry: the right language is “treat as unverified” but leaving the current language is OK
  • Pete: I will propose text: there are the order of ten occurances; I’m happy to have a general statement of what we mean by “reject”; I will look for cases where I find it ambiguous
  • Pete: there are JSON serializations that cannot be represented in the compact syntax; are we OK with these things being un-expressible; I hear nobody else being concerned
  • Kathleen: can we do the rest in email
  • Amy: revised-ID needed

• draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token

  Telechat:

  • Amy: consensus unknown, quite a number of discusses
  • Kathleen: the WG has had consensus; Richard?
  • Richard: pretty clear, I think: the application needs to say which is secured
  • Kathleen: Alissa?
  • Alissa: normative language changes can be made, I haven’t seen the authors agree yet
  • Kathleen: Stephen?
  • Stephen: mumble, I don’t get that at all; I don’t recall it discussed on-list
  • Kathleen: Barry?
  • Barry: Mike responded, we don’t need to talk about that
  • Kathleen: I think that’s it
  • Amy: revised-ID needed; is the WG consensus clear for all these documents? it’s up to ADs to make sure that field is set whether or not the secretariat does it

• draft-ietf-eppext-reg

  Telechat:

  • Amy: no open, number of discusses
  • Pete: my discuss is, we have to update the IANA considerations; Adrian, we can have broader discussion if he wants; but the WG doesn’t care whether it’s PS or Informational, does anyone object to Informational
  • Adrian: does the author plan to have an update on registry
  • Pete: there is no registry at this point
  • Adrian: I’ll clear
  • Pete: we should get on this earlier; I’ve got an update to Security Consideration coming; Stephen?
  • Stephen: is this the protocol where ICANN-land is concerned about information being published
  • Barry: I think that’s WEIRDS
  • Pete: let’s see what the WG has to say; I have a number of other things to correct; revised-ID needed
  • Amy: do you want us to change status to Informational? (yes)
  • Russ: I sent a comment about creating three entries in the registry, two are extensions?? but wording says they’re all TLVs, why?
  • Pete: I will check that out
  • Amy: revised-ID needed

• draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization

  Telechat:

  • (moved to Experimental about two hours ago)

2.1.2 Returning Items

• (none)

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Items

• draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf

  Telechat:

  • Amy: no open, no active discusses, hearing no objection, approved
  • Barry: no notes needed

2.2.2 Returning Items

• (none)

2.3 Status Changes

2.3.1 New Items

• (none)

2.3.2 Returning Items

• (none)

3. Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions

3.1.1 New Items

• draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn

  Telechat:

  • Amy: unknown consensus; no discusses, hearing no objection, approved
  • Spencer: there is consensus; some comments, so point-raised, please

  >

• draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization

  Telechat:

  • Amy: a discuss
  • Adrian: Richard?
  • Richard: I just wanted _an_ answer; I’ll clear
  • Adrian: point-raised please, a Welsh term is misspelled

3.1.2 Returning Items

• draft-ietf-roll-security-threats

  Telechat:

  • Amy: no open discusses, hearing no objection, approved
  • Adrian: revised-ID needed, pretty-valuable comments in tracker

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD

3.2.1 New Items

• (none)

3.2.2 Returning Items

• (none)

3.3 Status Changes

3.3.1 New Items

• (none)

3.3.2 Returning Items

• (none)

3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission Stream Documents

3.4.1 New Items

• (none)

3.4.2 Returning Items

• (none)

1237 EDT five-minute break

4 Working Group Actions

4.1 WG Creation

4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review

1. DNS PRIVate Exchange (dprive)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: no blocking comments to external review
   • Brian: I’ll make some edits

2. BGP Enabled Services (bess)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: no blocking comments; approved for external review
   • Adrian: I have a few edits

3. Layer Independent OAM Management in the Multi-Layer Environment (lime)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: no blocking comments; approved for external review
   • Benoit: a few edits, tonight or tomorrow morning

4. Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach (anima)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: no blocking comments, ready for external review
   • Benoit: I’ve been happy with feedback; right discussion between anima and homenet; Ted & Brian, do you believe overlay is in management only, or also in bootstrap
   • Ted: I don’t know the answer, we should try to answer that before chartering; may be some commonality which needs to be talked about
   • Benoit: we are already in the external-review stage: I’ll let the two groups discuss it
   • Russ: external review _means_ a posting to NEW-WORK
   • Benoit: I’ll do a few edits, but not touch the HOMENET issue

4.1.2 Proposed for Approval

1. Web-Based Push Notifications (webpush)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: a blocking comment
   • Alissa: Stephen and I have been chatting on the sidelines, I think we’re getting real close; should be able to settle this within a couple of days
   • Amy: we’ll wait for Alissa to tell us… we need chairs
   • Alissa: I have two chairs
   • Amy: you can put those names in the charter

4.2 WG Rechartering

4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review

1. Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: will this require external review
   • Brian: yes, potential input from IEEE; but I have a few edits
   • Amy: external review approved pending edits

2. Routing Area Working Group (rtgwg)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: no blocking comments; does this need external review
   • Alia: I think we can just make the change: getting rid of some text
   • Amy: we will send the recharter announcement

3. Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3)

   Telechat::

   • Amy: no blocking comments, I have a request for external review; hearing no objection, approved for external review

4.2.2 Proposed for Approval

1. (none)

5. IAB News We can use

• Mary: 219? document: last-call has been reopened, work with Ted; we will not pursue a technical topic for the plenary for IETF-91; just a one-hour overview of two newest programs

6. Management Issues

1. [IANA #783396] Management Item: Acceptance of media-type registration from standards organization OASIS (IANA/Amanda Baber)

   Telechat::

   • Pete: amazed they aren’t already on the list
   • Amy: hearing no objection, we’ll send the email approving OASIS

2. S-NAPTR Expert Reviewer (Martin Stiemerling)

   Telechat::

   • Martin: (name) is willing, consider it done
   • Amy: discussed, approved

3. Discussion of area re-org proposal (Pete Resnick)

   Telechat::

   • Pete: this started as an informal discussion, we’ll make the context clear before announcing, anyone want to comment
   • Pete: Benoit, did my follow-up help
   • Benoit: issue of time commitment to be an AD
   • Pete: I expect no immediate effect there, APPS has declining number of WGs
   • Jari: intent to put more ADs where they’re needed; the fix will come later
   • Barry: gives us flexibility… we’ve had ADs for multiple areas in the past
   • Jari: that doesn’t seem practical to me
   • Barry: when we actually do the re-org, we need to sort WGs into clusters, then see which area
   • Benoit: do you know anyone who would be willing to split his time between two areas?
   • Alissa: we just can’t do that at this stage of the cycle
   • Pete: it would take too long to get community consensus on the revised job description in time
   • Pete: I sent suggested text to the IESG, but I’d prefer having some comments before telling the community
   • Adrian: I do have some comments
   • Pete: we will scrape together something text to send to the community, please add an action item for that
   • Jari: we have decided to go forth with a reorganization process, with most details to come later
   • Alissa: there are several things to write
   • Barry: Brian and I will start a discussion on the mailing-list
   • Pete: minutes to show discussed, IESG will draft language to publish to the community

7. Agenda Working Group News

• Jari: IANA plan was approved, interim meeting Monday
• Ted: Susan Hares now co-chair of TRILL, Don Eastlake is now the WG Secretary
• Kathleen: three drafts for OAUTH followon from JOSE, do you want them on the next telechat (yes)

Amy: we still need chairs for the other half of the BoFs we approved

Amy: Martin, if you want to charter before IETF91 it must go to internal review before October 9th

1323 EDT Adjourned