INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative minutes for the 2019-09-19 IESG Teleconference

These are not an official record of the meeting.
Narrative Scribe: Amy Vezza, Secretariat
Corrections from: Deborah Brungard, Cindy Morgan, Ben Kaduk

1. Administrivia
1.1 Roll call

ATTENDEES 
--------------------------------- 
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) / Routing Area
Jenny Bui (AMS) / IETF Secretariat 
Michelle Cotton (ICANN) / IANA Liaison
Alissa Cooper (Cisco) / IETF Chair, General Area
Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Security Area
Ted Hardie (Google) / IAB Chair
Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area
Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area
Barry Leiba (Futurewei Technologies) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area
Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Alvaro Retana (Futurewei Technologies) / Routing Area
Adam Roach (Mozilla) / Applications and Real-Time Area
Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat
Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area
Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Internet Area

REGRETS 
---------------------------------
Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix) /  Operations and Management Area
Heather Flanagan / RFC Series Editor
Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe
Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison 
Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom) / Internet Area
Wes Hardaker (USC/ISI) / IAB Liaison
Mirja Kuehlewind (Ericsson) / Transport Area
Portia Wenze-Danley (ISOC) / Interim LLC Executive Director

OBSERVERS
--------------------------------- 

Greg Wood

1.2 Bash the agenda

Michelle: There is a survey from IANA. Please fill that out. If you didn't 
get the link, please let me know.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats

Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes from the September 5 
telechat being approved? We will mark those as approved, and will post them. 
I saw final narrative minutes; is there any objection to approving those? 
Hearing no objection, those will be posted in the public archive as well.

1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat

    OUTSTANDING TASKS
    
         Last updated: September 13, 2019
    
      o Ignas Bagdonas to propose an additional question on YANG Model 
        format validation for each of the styles of document write-ups.

Amy: Ignas is not here so we will mark this still in progress for him.

      o Roman Danyliw to draft text to be posted on ietf.org about reporting 
        protocol vulnerabilities via an email alias and possible procedures 
        on how to assign triage resources. 

Roman: Still in progress.

      o Martin Vigoureux to work with the IESG to create a list of possible 
        IESG Tutorials and will prioritize them for scheduling on a series 
        of Informal Telechats.

Amy: I think I saw email. The first part is done, and the IESG should send 
Martin email about preferences to make a schedule, is that right? Is this 
done?

Martin: Yes.

Amy: We'll mark that as done.
 
      o Eric Vyncke to write up draft text for the NomCom to help them 
        understand the rules for the NomCom.

Eric: I sent a reminder to Victor to review the document, and if I don't get 
anything from him we'll just publish.
 
      o Roman Danyliw to shepherd the www.ietf.org analytics discussion 
        with the community.

Roman: We're very close. Shared with the tools team. Expect to be done soon, 
but still in progress.

Alissa: And then you'll ship it to the community?

Roman: Yes, I wanted to make sure it made sense, and then tell the list the 
new proposal. 

Alissa: And then the tools team would get on it. 

Roman: It's another follow up. 

Alissa: No waiting for feedback?

Roman: No. We just had some nits to reword. I think it's minor. We're in a 
good place.


      o Alexey Melnikov to find designated experts for RFC 8610 [IANA 
        #1145107].

Amy: This is a MI later. So we have this for approval today.

      o Ignas Bagdonas to find designated experts for RFC 7317 [IANA 
        #1146017].

Amy: We'll mark this in progress.

      o Adam Roach to collate the list of specific "hot topic" items from 
        each Area that will be provided to document authors and post it on 
        the wiki.

Amy: How is that going?

Adam: I sent email to the IESG to look at it. I wanted to make sure everyone 
had a chance to look at it. There was some surprise expressed at the plan. I 
want to put this in front of the WG chairs and they can see early what's 
here. Encourage them to share with their authors. I wanted to raise 
awareness if my summary was complete. Sounds good then? [yes] I will send an 
email for last call for changes by sometime next week and then send to WG 
Chairs.

      o Adam Roach to send a message to the tools team cc Roman as 
        liaison about removing the required date associated with milestones 
        on WG Charters.

Adam: Still in progress.

      o Barry Leiba, Eric Vyncke, and Warren Kumari to set up a call to 
        discuss the ADD work and report back to the IESG.

Amy: I've seen email here, is this one done?

Barry: Yes.

      o Barry Leiba to send the plan for last-call@ietf.org to the IETF 
        list.

Amy: I saw a lot of email for this.

Barry: Yes, this action is done.

Alissa: Can I ask if the comment period is still on going?

Barry: Yes, it's open until the end of September. But we have largely 
positive comments. Pretty clear we'll have a go.

Alissa: I have moderators on the hook when we're ready.

      o Magnus and Suresh to draft an "AD Evaluation" checklist, 
        and add it to the IESG wiki.

Magnus: This is in progress.

      o Alissa to work with Liz and Alexa to determine the 
        optimum time for open agenda time for IETF 106 (before 10am as in 
        Montreal, or longer lunch break, or something else).
 
Amy: I know Liz is currently on vacation. Any update?

Alissa: I did get mail from Liz. She thought the morning slot we used last 
time was a good choice. We're waiting for Stephanie to look at meal times to 
see if there are any time constraints there. Her recollection that there is 
food available in Singapore at all times of day.

Amy: So in progress then. 

     o Alissa, Alvaro, Martin, and Alexa to draft text for the 
        instructions for the SWOT/PEST exercise.

Amy: I saw some email on this but not a lot.

Alvaro: The action item is done. We drafted text and sent it out. We want 
people to put their answers into the survey by Sunday night. So we can 
aggregate that and talk about it on the telechat next week.


2. Protocol actions
2.1 WG submissions
2.1.1 New items
    
  o draft-ietf-curdle-rc4-die-die-die-16 - IETF stream
    Deprecating RC4 in Secure Shell (SSH) (Best Current Practice)
    Token: Benjamin Kaduk
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: There is a discuss.

Ben: It seems reasonable. I expect the authors to be amenable. I would note 
that we can basically change the notes in the registry at will, so not clear 
to me of making a discuss point on the document. As opposed to doing the 
right thing for the registry contents.

Ace: It's mainly a trivial thing to make sure they don't forget to add it.

Ben: It's fine to do what you did and we can put it in revised ID needed.

Ace: Not needed. I can clear the discuss, and it can get fixed at some 
point.

Amy: So the document is approved. Currently no notes, are there any needed?

Ben: I will take Warren's comment and put it in a note, so point raised.


  o draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-18 - IETF stream
    Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
    (EPP) (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Barry Leiba
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: There are couple of discusses here.

Barry: No, no on-call discussion needed. Please put it in revised ID needed.

Amy: Great.

  o draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-10 - IETF stream
    Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-based Signature Algorithm in the
    Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Roman Danyliw
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: No discusses. Any objection to approval?

[none]

Amy: No notes here, any needed?

Roman: Good to go, all comments have been addressed.

Amy: It has a downref to 8554. Does this need to be added to the registry?

Roman: Yes.

Amy: Okay on approval we will add 8554 to the downref registry.


  o draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-11 - IETF stream
    PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with
    Stateful PCE (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Deborah Brungard
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: We have a discuss. Do we need to discuss it?

Deborah: I don't think so. Dhruv has been in contact with Ben, and when he is 
back next week he'll continue with the conversation.

Amy: Revised ID needed as the substate.


  o draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-07 - IETF stream
    Restart Signaling for IS-IS (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Alvaro Retana
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: I have a discuss. Do we need to discuss it?
 
Alvaro: No. I think it makes sense, we'll probably need a revised ID for this 
one.

Amy IESG Evaluation Revised ID needed.

  o draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10 - IETF stream
    PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with
    Stateful PCE (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Deborah Brungard
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: There is a discuss.
 
Deborah: I don't think we need to discuss. Dhruv responded to Ben, but not 
sure he's done an update yet, so revised ID needed.

Ben: The response from Dhruv was pretty good. Can we talk about point number 
2? For Protection Type there is allocated 6 individual bits as opposed to a 
6-bit integer code point. We currently have 5 allocated and I see nothing to 
indicate that we'll ever actually allocate more. Not sure how much to press 
on this or how much we really care. We can take this to email.

Deborah: Dhruv didn't answer on limitations, I think its best that 
they answer back to say why they didn't think it was a concern.

Ben: Alright.

Amy: Stays in IESG Evaluation with a substate of Revised ID Needed.


  o draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03 - IETF stream
    PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits (Proposed
    Standard)
    Token: Deborah Brungard
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: There is a discuss.

Deborah: I don't think we need to discuss. Stay in IESG Evaluation. I know 
there is a question from Sue that needs to be addressed. Revised ID needed.

  o draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-01 - IETF stream
    Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences (Proposed
    Standard)
    Token: Alexey Melnikov
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: No open positions, and no active discussions. Looks like this is 
approved.

Alexey: This is waiting for a needed expert. So Point raised, please.

Amy: Let us know when that's ready.


2.1.2 Returning items

  NONE

2.2 Individual submissions
2.2.1 New items
    
  o draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-03  - IETF stream
    IDNA Review for New Unicode Versions (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Barry Leiba
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: There is a discuss. Do we need to discuss that today?

Barry: No. For this and the next one please put them into revised ID needed. 
[Redacted Comment, change to:] we have a lot of comments for them. 


  o draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-05  - IETF stream
    Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Registry
    Restrictions and Recommendations (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Barry Leiba
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: So this one is going to Revised ID Needed as well.

2.2.2 Returning items

  NONE

2.3 Status changes
2.3.1 New items
    
  o status-change-ssh-arcfour-to-historic-00 - IETF stream
    Moving RFC 4345 (arcfour modes for SSH) to Historic (None)
    Token: Benjamin Kaduk

Amy: I believe this hinges on the approval of curdle-rc4-die-die-die. That 
one is in Point raised, and they go forward together, right Ben? No 
discusses on the status change, so once the curdle-rc4-die-die-die document 
approval is received they will both be sent.

Ben: Right. I will try to remember to make a note of that when I approve the 
curdle document.

Amy: Approved pending approval of curdle-rc4-die-die-die.

Ben: For the status change document, we're supposed to have the reference of 
the document changed to the reference of the RFC. I don't know who is 
responsible for doing that, if we do that in the next week, or if it waits 
for the RFC Publication weeks from now.

Amy: When curdle-rc4-die-die-die becomes an RFC?

Ben: Yes, in the status change we have text referencing curdle-die-die-die. 
So changing that reference to the RFC. Which can't happen until its 
published. So sounds like nothing to do right away.

Amy: I think that's right.

Ben: Do we need to leave a note for ourselves to do that.

Barry: Probably in a note for the RFC Editor for die-die-die. In general we 
either we put a note in the document to move something to historic, and we'd 
put a management item in the telechat to do that. Or, if it wasn't worth 
making a separate document we'd do it with a status change document. Nothing 
wrong with doing both, but that's why its more complicated.

Ben: Okay. I think I know what to do.

Ace: I'm doing something similar with draft-ietf-dns-obsolete-dov, and that 
has gone through IETF LC as has the status change. And I think I just copy 
the content into the status change, and the IETF ballots on just the status 
change?   

Barry: Yes, and the draft itself just dies.

Ace: How does the document just die? Do I mark it as dead?

Barry: You can put it into IESG State Dead, but it will just expire, too.

Ace: I was unclear on how that happened. Thank you.

2.3.2 Returning items

  NONE

3. Document actions
3.1 WG submissions
3.1.1 New items
    
  o draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-06 - IETF stream
    Issues and Requirements for SNI Encryption in TLS (Informational)
    Token: Benjamin Kaduk
    Consensus: Yes

Amy: I have the consensus as unknown. Is this yes?

Ben: Yes.

Amy: No discusses. So unless there is an objection this is approved.

Ben: Lets put it in revised ID needed, though. The authors are pretty good 
about getting things addressed. I apologize the editorial version didn't get 
put up in a timely fashion.

Amy: Approved announcement to be sent, revised ID needed.

  o draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-13 - IETF stream
    Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
    (Informational)
    Token: Deborah Brungard
    Consensus: Yes


Amy: I have discusses in the tracker.

Deborah: I don't think we need to discuss them. Dhruv is still on vacation. 
Revised ID Needed.

3.1.2 Returning items

  NONE

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

  o conflict-review-ise-iana-policy-00
    IETF conflict review for draft-ise-iana-policy
      draft-ise-iana-policy-02
      How Requests for IANA Action Will be Handled on the Independent
    Stream (ISE: Informational)
    Token: Alissa Cooper

Amy: I have no discusses in the tracker. Looks to be approved with no 
problem message with the notes in the tracker.

3.4.2 Returning items

  NONE

4. Working Group actions
4.1 WG creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review

  NONE

4.1.2 Proposed for approval

  NONE

4.2 WG rechartering
4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review

  NONE

4.2.2 Proposed for approval

  o Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance (avtcore)

Amy: I have no blocking comments on the charter. 

Barry: Please change the chairs, so add Roni Even to the chair list before 
it goes.

Amy: We will do so. Thank you.

5. IAB news we can use

Ted: The RSE Model community discussions have started. First one was pretty 
quiet. It probably could have ended early. We have two more of those, we expect to 
request a 90-minute slot [in Singapore] which will kick off the process for RFC Model 
Evolution.

Amy: Any questions for Ted?

Alissa: I was going to ask about the 8200 discussions. Inflight insertion 
extension headers? 

Ted: It was in response to request, the IAB talked with Martin, Alvaro, and 
Suresh about whether or not there is an architecture issue here with the 
insertion of inflight headers. The pointer given to Fernando about wire 
image and some of the Stack-Evo documents is part of the discussion. One of 
the next steps might be a document that says hey if you don't 
cryptographically encrypt this, it will get changed. Unless you 
cryptographically protected it you should expect that someone else will. I 
think there will be a mailing list to discuss the document, but still in 
early days yet.

Amy: Thanks, Ted.


6. Management issues

6.1 Lack of NomCom Nominations (Eric Vyncke)

Eric: As liaison to the NomCom, I'm concerned by lack of nominees. Nobody 
accepted from Transport, one suggestion, but the gentleman declined. In 
Management, we expected Ignas to nominate himself, but he has not. But there 
are two candidates there. One candidate for ART, one for Internet, one for 
Security, which is Ben of course. Its very concerning. I want all of us to 
probe the people in our areas or nominate them. That's basically it. 

Alexey: I'm planning on nominating a few people for ART this weekend.

Eric: Superb, thank you.

6.2 Possible leadership training during the Amsterdam IESG retreat (Alissa 
Cooper)

Alissa: Alexey sent a summary of what the trainers who are working with RIPE 
would be able to offer us in Amsterdam. Eric responded, but I was wondering 
if anyone else has opinions either way, given what they have to offer. I am 
still talking to Portia about the budget. If we have the budget for it, do 
people think it's a good idea or not?

Alvaro: I agree with Eric, I don't think this is the type of training we 
probably need.

Alissa: Any other opinions? I'm not hearing a strong preference for it.

Roman: I think we should talk at the retreat what we have in mind. I think 
this too quick to jump in without more discussion.

Magnus: What would we throw out on the agenda to make room for this?

Alissa: We'd have to ditch some of the things and decide this is a higher 
priority. I think the SWOT/PEST and some conduct stuff and then this. We'd 
have to ditch some other things.

Alexey: Eric, you talked about training team leadership. What do you have in 
mind? This is more communications.

Eric: Terry proposed something a while back. It was really nice way of 
saying it. 

Alexey: Do you know who can do this?

Eric: No. No idea. But basically using terms I was unaware of. Something 
like being leader of a community. This seems more one to one. Non-violent 
communication is one to one. I can find it, if you want.

Alexey: I didn't see anything detailed enough to be actionable.

Alissa: We can take some time. People can do some research and people can 
offer ideas of what they're looking for, we can take some time to discuss 
it. Maybe take a chunk of time in Singapore, Sunday morning. Or we can 
figure it out another way.

Eric: Sounds good.

Alissa: People should send their thoughts to the list and we'll discuss in 
Amsterdam a little bit. 

6.3 Designated Experts for CDDL Control Operators (RFC 8610) (Alexey 
Melnikov)

Amy: Last MI. The designated experts for RFC 8610. It looks like you would 
like to name Jim Schaad, Jeffrey Yasskin, and Henk Berkholz as the experts 
for this registry. Any objections?

[No]

Amy: We will send an official notification to IANA for that.

7. Any Other Business (WG News, New Proposals, etc.)

Ben: The LAKE charter call for comments on the LAKE list from the BoF went 
pretty well. There was a long set of comments I'm still digesting that said 
do LAKE, but disagrees with having the TLS WG do cTLS for the general case. 
The IESG should expect to see a LAKE charter for review soon.

Barry: There are only two BoF requests in. Does anyone expect any other 
request besides WEBTRANS and RAW that are already in the wiki?

Roman: I have one in my mailbox for more polish. Roughly its whats next gen 
OAUTH looks like.

Ace: Possibly. We may be chartering the MOPS WG, on the off chance we don't 
get that done in time, we might have it as a BoF. It's unusual. I think it 
would be good to meet in some fashion. Maybe Eric can say more.

Eric: I was going to say that. And ADD/BoF WG.

Barry: Similarly, may be a placeholder BoF from that so they can meet in 
Singapore.

Alissa: WebPackaging? Is that in the pipeline?

Alexey: I haven't heard recently. I'll chase that.

Adam: I was expecting to hear by now. It's been quiet.

Ben: In a similar vein, we talked a little with PHB last time about a BoF 
for mathematical mesh might be the best next step. I haven't heard anything 
from him. Also in Security area, SEC DISPATCH, shape of doing post quantum-y 
stuff. but might require more time than SECDISPATCH could give them, so a 
BoF might be a good next step. Nothing concrete yet.

Roman: I have heard no follow up on mathematical mesh.

Alissa: One other thing, the SAA have circulated github repo where we have 
documentation about standard operating procedures. Basically some standard 
procedures we developed together and some email templates to use going 
forward. We've shared with ombudsteam and a few others. We'll do another 
round of sharing with a broader group before going to the community. We 
really want people's feedback before sharing with the broader community.

Amy: All of those proposed WGs that might not quite make it through to 
approval before Singapore, it might be a good back up to put them in the BoF 
Wiki if you want them to meet in Singapore, so they can be scheduled on the 
agenda. Thank you all!