Minutes of the 2021-09-22 IAB Teleconference

1. Administrivia

1.1. Attendance

Present:
Regrets:
Guests:
Observers:

1.2. Agenda bash and announcements

No new items were added to the agenda.

1.3. Meeting Minutes

The following minutes were approved:

1.4. Action item review

Done:
On Hold:
In Progress:
New:

1.5. IAB Document Status Update

Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/stream/iab/

IAB State: Sent to RFC Editor

RFC Editor State: IANA
* draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-05

IAB State: Active IAB Document
* draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01

IAB State: Community Review (ends 2021-09-22)

Tommy Pauly said that draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it should be ready to come back to an IAB Agenda for approval once the authors post a revision that addresses the comments received during the community review process.

1.6. WG Chartering in Progress

Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/chartering/

External Review

IESG Telechat: 2021-09-23
* Oblivious Applications using Relayed HTTP (oarh)

[Formerly Oblivious HTTP (ohttp)]

External Review

IESG Telechat: 2021-09-23

2. IRTF Review: Path Aware Networking RG (PANRG)

Jen Linkova and Brian Trammell updated the IAB on the current activities of the Path Aware Networking RG (PANRG). The scope of work for PANRG includes (but is not limited to):

In June 2021, PANRG published RFC 9049, “Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to Deployment (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken).” This RFC catalogs historical obstacles to deployment for path-aware IETF protocols over several decades. The RFC informed the development of open questions for PANRG. It does not catalog every path-aware IETF protocol, only the ones necessary to explain the obstacles to deployment.

Current Open Questions in PANRG include:

  1. How are path properties defined and represented?
  2. How do endpoints get access to trustworthy path properties?
  3. How can endpoints select paths to use for traffic in a way that can be trusted by both the network and the endpoints?
  4. How can interfaces to the transport and application layers support the use of path awareness?
  5. How should transport-layer and higher layer protocols be redesigned to work most effectively over a path-aware networking layer?
  6. How is path awareness (in terms of vocabulary and interfaces) different when applied to tunnel and overlay endpoints?
  7. How can a path aware network in a path aware internetwork be effectively operated, given control inputs from the network administrator as well as from the endpoints?
  8. How can the incentives of network operators and end-users be aligned to realize the vision of path aware networking, and how can the transition from current (“path-oblivious”) to path-aware networking be managed?

Next steps for PANRG include answering the questions above (draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties), considering research applications of PAN properties to IETF protocols (e.g. draft-dawkins-quic-multipath-selection), and reaching out to the ALTO WG to pull more research-oriented followup work into PANRG. PANRG will continue operating as a general venue for IETF-adjacent work on the intersections between routing and transport.

Jen Linkova noted that PANRG was originally envisioned as a robust program of path-aware internetworking and a vision for a future architecture with endpoint control. In practice, PANRG is a venue to bridge the gap between transport and routing and a place to provide feedback on the proposals that come into the IETF and fall into that gap.

Tommy Pauly asked whether the current PANRG model is working as a way to allow the IRTF/IETF more visibility and influence into the activities of people who are working on future Internet architecture.

Jen Linkova replied that it is; it has been nice to have a venue that provides a bridge between transport and routing. Brian Trammell added that there is a lot of cross-layer optimization and things that don’t fit into the traditional IETF layer model in PANRG, and that it has been helpful to be able to provide feedback and help filter in the good ideas.

3. Update from Measuring Network Quality for End-Users Workshop

Wes Hardaker reported that the Measuring Network Quality for End-Users Workshop went well; there were a number of good conclusions that came out of the workshop that may lead to new WGs or RGs. The next step is to work on the workshop report.

4. Membership on iab@iab.org mailing list and Slack channel

The IAB discussed the membership of the iab@iab.org mailing list and Slack channel, and whether any changes are needed to make it more clear who sees those messages.

Currently, the membership of iab@iab.org and the IAB Slack channel is:

The IAB agreed that having the same membership on iab@iab.org and the IAB Slack channel makes sense.

Colin Perkins noted that the membership of the IAB mailing list has evolved over time, and in the past there was a case where someone sent a message to the list criticizing a contractor when that contractor was on the list.

The IAB agreed that it should try to do a better job of making sure that the community knows who receives messages on the IAB list. Cindy Morgan will look for a place to document this on the IAB website, and the IAB will include this information in the slides at future IAB Open meetings.

5. Next IAB Meeting

The next IAB Meeting will be on 2021-10-06 at 1400 UTC.

6. ICANN NomCom Appointment

In an e-vote, the IAB selected Paul Wouters as the IETF Delegate to the 2022 ICANN Nominating Committee. Cindy Morgan will follow up with the candidates and make an announcement.