Minutes of the 2022-04-20 IAB Business Meeting

1. Administrivia

1.1. Attendance


Jari Arkko

Deborah Brungard

Lars Eggert (IETF Chair)

Wes Hardaker

Cullen Jennings

Mallory Knodel

Mirja Kühlewind (IAB Chair)

Warren Kumari (IESG Liaison)

Zhenbin Li

Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)

Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)

Tommy Pauly

Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)

David Schinazi

Sabrina Tanamal (IANA Liaison)

Amy Vezza (IETF Secretariat)

Russ White

Greg Wood (IETF Director of Communications and Operations)

Qin Wu

Jiankang Yao


Mark McFadden

Robert Sparks

1.2. Agenda bash and announcements

Cindy Morgan noted that all of the conflict of interest disclosures for 2022-2023 have been posted on the website.

Lars Eggert asked the IAB to look at the retreat agenda and confirm any topics they will be speaking about. David Schinazi reminded the IAB to fill out the spreadsheet to indicate whether they will be in-person or remote so that there is an accurate headcount and names can be sent to building security.

1.3. Meeting Minutes

The following meeting minutes were approved.

The following meeting minutes remain under review.

1.4. Action item review

On Hold:
In Progress:

1.5. IAB Document Status Update

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

IAB State: Active IAB Document
* draft-iab-mnqeu-report-01

IAB State: Active IAB Document
* draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-00

IAB State: Active IAB Document
* draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-05

IAB State: Active IAB Document (EXPIRED)
* draft-iab-rfc7991bis-04

IAB State: I-D Exists
* draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13

RFC Editor Queue: Edit

1.6. WG Chartering in Progress

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

2. Monthly Reports

2.1. IANA Liaison Report

–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Sabrina Tanamal–

IANA Services Liaison Report – 20 April 2022

SLA Deliverables Update:

ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for the March 2022 monthly 
statistics report, exceeding the SLA goal to meet 90% of processing goal 
times. These times include the steps that ICANN has control over and not 
time it is waiting on requesters, document authors or other experts. 
Monthly reports can be found at: https://www.iana.org/performance/ietf-

Other News:

Implementation of nameserver changes for the .ARPA zone is scheduled on 
25 April and 2 May 2022.

IETF-IANA Group meeting was held on 7 April 2022. Meeting minutes will 
be available at the next IAB Business meeting.

IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes from 10 
February 2022:

Summary of Meeting Minutes 
Thursday, February 10, 2022
Virtual interim meeting 
1900 UTC


Mirja Kühlewind, IAB Chair
Russ Housley, IETF-IANA Group Co-Lead
Jari Arkko, IETF-IANA Group
Jay Daley, IETF LLC Executive Director
Lars Eggert, IETF Chair
Roman Danyliw, IESG Representative
Kim Davies, VP, IANA Services, ICANN, President, Public Technical Identifiers (PTI)
Amy Creamer, Director of Operations
Amanda Baber, IANA Operations Manager
Sabrina Tanamal, Lead IANA Services Specialist 
Michelle Thangtamsatid, IANA Services Specialist

1. Introductions and Welcome


K. Davies expressed that this discussion would be a good opportunity to 
talk about recalibrating expectations and tailoring how we interact with 
each other moving forward and our desires for coverage for individuals, 

L. Eggert explained that the IETF has had a long-standing assumption 
that IANA has a person who's a liaison to the IESG and IAB, and that's 
even written into some RFCs.  Michelle Cotton’s departure was unexpected 
and there is concern about IANA role changes that were not previously 
vetted with the IETF.  However, how IANA carries out its functions -  
processing/completing registrations, that has been working great.

2. IANA Services Team Structure: 


K. Davies shared an overview of the team support.

Amy Creamer is the Director of Operations; operations include all of the 
services we provide to our core communities (IETF, Root Zone Management, 
and RIRs).

Marilia Hirano is the Director of Strategic Programs and manages our 
strategic roadmap, auditing, continuous improvement.

James Mitchell is the Technical Director who leads up the team that 
provisions our systems, software development, and KSK ceremonies. 
Manages team that also contributes as internal technical SMEs

Within Amy's team, Amanda Baber and Sabrina Tanamal have supported the 
IETF for many years. Michelle Thangtamsatid is ramping up her training 
to support the IETF as  well. Selina and George are primarily targeted 
towards root zone management at this time. A sixth individual is likely 
to be joining shortly as well; we'll let you know at the next meeting.

Previous organization: Ten years ago, we had three silos: naming, 
numbers, and an IETF support function. We adjusted that model to 
recognize that it didn't provide much opportunity for coverage or 
growth, and as the team and workload grew, we restructured. Each 
individual has their own specialties, but coverage and growth 
opportunities exist. Satisfaction with our performance demonstrates that 
this model works, and we'd like to retain it. This also allows us to 
dynamically adjust workload if there's a spike in some area. 

*The diagram doesn’t show the whole IANA team, which consists of roughly 
15 people. Those not shown include people who provide software 
development, audits, key ceremonies, and administrative support.

3. How IANA Will Support the IETF: 


K. Davies: 
Our objective was to remove single points of failure and provide 

A primary person (with a secondary back-up) is assigned for interactions 
with the IETF, IAB, and IESG

L. Eggert: 
Preference for personalized email addresses to be signed up to mailing 
lists vs. role accounts

M. Kühlewind: 
The primary IANA contact, besides subscribing to mailing lists, needs to 
be updated on web pages where all of the liaisons are mentioned. 

For places where we have a mailing list, meeting, and a web page, it 
should always be the same person. It's probably a good idea to send out 
an announcement to the IESG and IAB mailing lists and say that you are 
the new IANA contact person. 

4. IANA-IETF Communication concerns
L. Eggert: 
Concern would be to avoid this lack of communication in the future
Also reminded IANA that leadership on the IETF site changes regularly, 
so you'll have to repeat this every two years as if nobody had heard it 

K. Davies: 
Agreement on IANA needing to be more transparent about staffing plans 
and involve the IETF  in our vision. 

5. AOB
L. Eggert: The IESG will send out a message to the community saying that 
we're planning to improve the transparency in communications between 
RPC/RFC Editors with authors/chairs/ADs during the AUTH48 period. 
Typically this discussion is between the RFC Editor and authors along 
with chairs and ADs in cc. The proposal was made to open this up for 
observation. We don't want to build a lot of custom tooling, so we 
landed on building a mailing list that the RFC Editor would cc on 
communications with the authors. Then people could go to the archive.

Considering something similar to the IANA registration interactions that 
are happening, but they're not archived as far as I know.

Discuss with your team if it's possible to copy a mailing list in cc 
from the ticketing system. It would be nice if this mailing list 
approach works for you too.

A written proposal will be worked out and sent out to the community.

K. Davies:
We just need to figure out the potential mechanics, and from our side we 
capture all of those conversations in our ticketing system, and it's not 
publicly available. If a direct party asks for it via a request, we will 
provide it. 

Token: K. Davies
Action Item: Provide update at the next meeting on including mailing 
lists in cc during AUTH48.


–End IANA Liaison Report, Sabrina Tanamal–

2.2. IRTF Chair Report

–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

IRTF chair report to the IAB for the month ending 20 April 2022.

# Research Groups

Appointed Sofía Celi as co-chair of HRPC. Co-chair for GAIA selected but 
is on paternity leave, will be announced. NMRG review with IAB will take 
place on 1 June 2022.


ANRP award talks for IETF 113 were given by Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi and 
Bruce Spang. https://irtf.org/anrp/


Taejoong (Tijay) Chung (Virginia Tech) and Marwan Fayed (Cloudflare) are 
co-chairing. The call for papers is open, with submissions due on 4 May. 
Expecting a hybrid event at IETF 114. https://irtf.org/anrw/2022/

# Documents and Errata

* With RFC Editor
- draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2
- draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch-considerations

* In IESG Conflict Review
- draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs

* In IRSG Final Poll
- draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g (ready for IESG conflict review)
- draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion (ready for conflict review)
- draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification
- draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions

* In IRSG Review
- draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-generation
- draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history (ready for IRSG final poll)
- draft-irtf-qirg-principles (ready for IRSG final poll?)
- draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo (revised draft needed)
- draft-irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve

* In IRTF Chair Review
- draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats
- draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines

# Other Activities

Three diversity travel grant awards made for IETF 113. Meeting to plan 
diversity and ANRW travel grants for IETF 114 next week.

–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

2.3. RSOC Chair Report

–Begin RSOC Chair Report, Peter Saint-Andre–

With the approval of version 3 of the RFC Editor Model produced by the 
RFC Editor Future Development Program, the RSOC is actively planning for 
its dissolution. As described at greater length in a separate message we 
sent recently to the IAB, we see a clear mapping of the RSOC's 
responsibilities (as defined in RFC 6635) to the entities specified in 
version 3 of the Model, especially to the IETF LLC and the new RFC 
Series Approval Board (RSAB).

In particular, this includes the work of the "RFC XML and Style Guide 
change management team" that the RSOC established in October 2020 to 
fulfill responsibilities specified in Section 4.3 of RFC 6635. Since 
then, this team (which includes the Temporary RFC Series Project 
Manager, representatives of the RPC, and developers of the publishing 
tools used by the RPC) has focused on (a) clearing the backlog of open 
issues related to the XML vocabulary and (b) working through day-to-day 
issues that arise during publication of RFCs.

With regard to (a), John Levine submitted draft-iab-rfc7991bis-04 
earlier this week in preparation for further discussion of the remaining 
issues on the rfc-interest list and, we expect, eventually on the email 
list of the new RFC Series Working Group (RSWG).

With regard to (b), in accordance with draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13 
we foresee that the RSAB will be the escalation point for resolving 
disagreements between authors and the RPC. Although the exact workings 
will be a matter for the RSAB to determine, the RSOC would be happy to 
provide insights to the RSAB once it is established regarding the nature 
and scope of the work involved.

–End RSOC Chair Report, Peter Saint-Andre–

2.4. Temporary RFC Series Project Manager Report

–Begin Temporary RFC Series Project Manager Report, John Levine–

In addition to the activity in the RSOC report, the [Temporary RFC 
Series Project Manager] is relieved to report that we are finally 
getting our RFCs indexed in Google Scholar. Depending on their spidering 
schedule, they should start to appear later this month.  This involved 
updating the scripts that render pre-XML RFCs into HTML to add the meta 
tags that Google needs.   We haven't yet arranged to add the tags to the 
XML RFCs so they won't be in Scholar until we do so, probably by 
updating the xml2rfc tool to add the tags and rerendering the XML.

The latest draft of RFC7991bis finally brings the documentation close to 
matching what the software does.  We hope to finish closing the gap this 
month, and then face the knotty question of how to make the XML in the 
RFCs we've already published match the final spec.

–End Temporary RFC Series Project Manager Report, John Levine–

3. IETF and Policy Makers Problem Statement

The IAB reviewed ISOC’s “IETF and policy makers – problem statement” document.

One question is whether the IETF should facilitate “mediated participation” by policy makers. Cullen Jennings said that this is not compatible with the IETF process, since people participate as individuals. Mirja Kühlewind replied that the question is more about talking to policy makers and helping them find the people with the technical knowledge to help them make their points.

Warren Kumari noted that ISOC had a Policy Fellows program, and asked what the relationship between this topic is and that. Karen O’Donoghue replied that the Policy Fellows program was put on hold during COVID when the IETF was not meeting in person and is unlikely to be revisited before the end of 2022.

Mirja Kühlewind added that the Policy Fellowship program was about explaining what the IETF does, but there is another piece, in helping policymakers bring their requirements to the IETF.

Lars Eggert noted that helping policymakers does not necessarily mean that the IETF will automatically do what they want, but that the IETF will help policymakers make connections with the people doing the relevant work.

Mirja Kühlewind asked whether it would be useful to have an IAB-ISOC Administrative Support Group to help facilitate conversations on such topics so that the IAB and ISOC can remained aligned. Several people agreed that this would be helpful. Karen O’Donoghue took an action to write up a short description for an IAB-ISOC Administrative Support Group.

4. Approval process of liaison statements

The IAB discussed the approval process for outgoing liaison statements. The IAB had previously discussed this topic in August 2022, where it was noted that Area Directors and Working Group chairs need to have a better understanding of the process, and also that tool changes may be needed to streamline things and make the approval steps more explicit.

Mirja Kühlewind suggested a number of changes to the liaison management tool in the Datatracker, but wanted to focus the current discussion on the liaison approval process. The Datatracker page for posting outgoing liaison statements currently has an “obtained prior approval” checkbox that can circumvent the approval step; to date, only 67 out of 657 liaison statements sent by Working Groups have not used that checkbox.

Tommy Pauly said that it may not be clear to people what that checkbox actually does, and they might just think that it something they are supposed to click, rather than something that can be used to skip the normal verification process.

The current approval chain for liaison statements in the Datatracker is:

Approval requests are usually sent to the responsible Area Director. They may also be sent to the IETF or IAB Chair if the liaison statement is being sent by a liaison manager and the “From” field is set to “The IETF” or “The IAB.” The Secretariat is copied on all approval emails. Everyone with access to the approval link can effectively approve a liaison statement. Currently, the IAB Liaison Coordinators have no role in the approval process and are not copied on the approval emails, but they are copied on the actual liaison statement.

The process for the approval and transmission of liaison statements is described in section 4 of RFC 4052:

For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF WG, the WG chair(s) must create a statement based on appropriate discussions within the WG to ensure working group consensus for the position(s) presented. The chair(s) must have generated or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement, and must advise the AD(s) that the liaison statement has been sent by copying the appropriate ADs on the message.

For a liaison statement generated on behalf of an IETF Area, the AD(s) must have generated or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement. If the liaison statement is not sent by the ADs, then their agreement must be obtained in advance and confirmed by copying the ADs on the message.

For a liaison statement generated on behalf of the IETF as a whole, the IETF Chair must have generated or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement. If the liaison statement is not sent by the IETF Chair, then his or her agreement must be obtained in advance and confirmed by copying the IETF Chair on the message.

For a liaison statement generated by the IAB, the IAB Chair must have generated or must agree with the sending of the liaison statement. If the liaison statement is not sent by the IAB Chair, then his or her agreement must be obtained in advance and confirmed by copying the IAB Chair on the message.

Mirja Kühlewind suggested requiring explicit approval for all outgoing liaison statements. Rather than sending a liaison statement out directly, an email requesting approval would be sent. The liaison statement would only be sent to the final recipients once approval is obtained. This would lead to more awareness, since more people would be required to look at a liaison statement before it is sent. However, this could cause delays. For urgent cases, there could be an override by the IETF Chair, IAB Chair, or Liaison Coordinators.

Lars Eggert said that if the IAB wants to change anything here, they will need to revise RFC 4052. RFC 4052 is an IAB-stream BCP, which is no longer allowed. Mirja Kühlewind said that she thinks this should be on the IETF stream. There is a mix of responsibility for liaison management, with the technical content of liaison statements mostly being under the purview of the IESG and Working Groups, while the management of the liaison relationships themselves are handled by the IAB.

Mirja Kühlewind and the Liaison Coordinators will continue discussions on how to refine the liaison tool and approval process and bring this topic back to the IAB for further discussion.

5. ICANN NomCom Appointment

Via e-vote, the IAB reappointed Vittorio Bertola to the ICANN NomCom for 2022-2023.

6. Next IAB Meeting

The next IAB meeting will be a technical discussion on 2022-04-27 at 0700 PDT.