An agenda item on the proposed IAB-ISOC Administrative Support Group was added to the agenda, time permitting.
The following meeting minutes were approved:
applicable.
problem statement to see if there is work that the IAB can do in this space.
* 2021-11-17: Mirja Kühlewind and Cindy Morgan to put together some options for the IAB Website revamp for the IAB to review.
* 2021-09-08: Liaison Coordinators to come up with a list of potential candidates to reach out to for future IAB-appointed
positions.
* 2022-04-13: Liaison Coordinators/Liaison Managers to document how the liaison role works for their respective SDOs.
* 2022-04-13: Liaison Coordinators to find out where liaison managers are having trouble accessing documents for their liaising
SDO.
* 2022-05-11: Wes Hardaker to reach out to the SAT BOF proponents and ADs re BOF shepherding.
* 2022-05-20: Cullen Jennings to look into a possible IAB Technical Discussion on Internet user identity in Internet communications applications. (Goal: 2022-07-13)
Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/stream/iab/
IAB State: Community Review ends 2022-06-28
* draft-iab-mnqeu-report-02
IAB State: Active IAB Document
* draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-00
IAB State: Active IAB Document
* draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-07
IAB State: Active IAB Document
* draft-iab-rfc7991bis-04
I-D Exists
* draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13
RFC Editor Queue: RFC-EDITOR
Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/chartering/
Networks (SAVNET)
External Review (on agenda of 2022-06-16 IESG telechat)
Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bof-requests
Supply Chain Integrity, Transparency, and Trust (SCITT)
IAB Shepherds: Jari Arkko, David Schinazi
* bofreq-danyliw-tigress-01
Transfer dIGital cREdentialS Securely (TIGRESS)
IAB Shepherd: Not requested (placeholder for WG to be chartered)
* bofreq-moskowitz-scvp-validation-request-tls-extension-00
SCVP Validation Request TLS Extension (VRTE)
IAB Shepherd: Not requested
* bofreq-hardie-media-over-quic-03
Media Over QUIC (MOQ)
IAB Shepherd: Not requested
* bofreq-lemon-stub-network-auto-configuration-for-ipv6-04
Stub Network Auto Configuration for IPv6 (SNAC)
Status: Approved
IAB Shepherd: Jari Arkko, Russ White
* bofreq-miller-json-web-proofs-00
JSON Web Proofs
IAB Shepherd: Not requested
* bofreq-hardjono-secure-asset-transfer-protocol-04
Secure Asset Transfer Protocol (SAT)
IAB Shepherd: Wes Hardaker
* bofreq-liu-multicast-source-routing-over-ipv6msr6-13
Multicast Source Routing over IPv6 (MSR6)
IAB Shepherds: Deborah Brungard, Russ White
The IAB met with Eliot Lear, who took over as the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) in February 2022.
According to RFC 4846, the Independent Stream publishes:
Eliot Lear noted that the ISE’s evaluation standards vary based on the category of document.
Eliot Lear said that as ISE, his priorities are interoperability, levity, and continuous improvement. He noted that levity (i.e. the April 1st RFCs) can be challenging, as it can be difficult to convey tone over text and there are different cultural sensitivities in an international audience, but he does think it important to provide levity when appropriate.
For the concept of continuous improvement, Eliot Lear presented three cases. Two have been submitted to the ISE, and one has not landed in a Stream yet.
Case 1: draft-santesson-svt (Signature Validation Token) – submitted to the ISE
This document was discussed in the IETF Security Area, but not picked up by any of their Working Groups.
Case 2: draft-schanzen-gns (The GNU Name System) – submitted to the ISE
Eliot Lear noted that it was not clear whether the ISE was the right place for this draft to be published.
Lars Eggert noted that this topic came up in the recent ICANN SSAC meeting, and that this document is not the only proposal in this space. He added that SSAC would like to have more discussion about this topic with the IAB.
Eliot Lear said that was good news, and suggested that the authors of this draft be invited to that discussion.
Colin Perkins noted that this draft was discussed in DINRG and also a few IETF WGs. He added that no one bringing work to the IRTF seems interested in making proposals on this topic.
Case 3: draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization (Centralization and Internet Standards) – no Stream decision yet
Eliot Lear noted that there has been discussion in the IAB about adopting this work.
Eliot Lear said that one of the challenges for the ISE is working with authors to figure out where work should proceed. After an initial evaluation (with lots of consultation), the ISE may decide to:
Eliot Lear said that his ultimate criteria is to do what he thinks will serve the community best. Making sure the work is well-reviewed is important; if he does not think that he can find the appropriate expertise to review the draft, he is unlikely to move it forward on the Independent Stream. He added that the ISE, IETF, and IRTF should take care to not continually pass the same work back and forth instead of progressing it.
Since taking over as ISE, Eliot Lear has adopted a Conflict of Interest Policy, added Martin Thomson to the Independent Submissions Editorial Board, and started requiring that authors recommend at least one reviewer with their submission.
–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Sabrina Tanamal–
IANA Services Liaison Report – 15 June 2022
SLA Deliverables Update:
ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for the April 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-
statistics
Other News:
IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes from 7 April
2022:
MEETING MINUTES - BEGIN
Summary of Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 7, 2022
Virtual interim meeting
1730 UTC
Attendees:
Jari Arkko
Russ Housley
Lars Eggert
Mirja Kuehlewind
Kim Davies
Amy Creamer
Sabrina Tanamal
Michelle Thangtamsatid
Amanda Baber
Regrets:
Jay Daley is unable to attend.
PENDING ACTION ITEMS
1. 18 Nov 2019: IANA term usage (K. Davies, in progress)
K. Davies: Objective is just to simplify/rationalize use of
terms like "IANA" and "PTI."
L. Eggert: Trust leaned strongly in the direction of wanting to
be their own LLC. You probably want to look into the objective
risks from an ICANN/IANA perspective.
2. 26 Aug 2021: Complete the licensing issue (K. Davies, completed)
3. 10 Feb 2022: Including mailing lists in cc during AUTH48 (K.
Davies, completed)
TOPICS
• IANA Services Activity/Performance
○ November – February [error in slides; stats are Nov 21 – Jan 22]
with 100 percent processing times
○ Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) Operating Plan and Budget
○ Initial engagement efforts for FY24 priorities is scheduled in May
○ Public Webinars will take place in July with invites sent to IETF
community and leadership
• Annual IANA Engagement Survey
2021 Survey saw an increase in IETF leadership participation. Survey
looks at six facets -- credibility, transparency, attentiveness,
fairness, timeliness, and accountability -- across naming, numbers, and
protocol parameters. IANA usually ranks fairly well (4 or higher out of
5) across the six concepts. Our ratings are consistently highest for the
protocol parameter function.
• Operational Activities Updates
- Nameservers for the Address and Routing Parameter Area
○ (“arpa”) Domain approved for publication:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-arpa-authoritative-servers/
○ Implementation plans have been discussed with Verisign and is
scheduled for late April
- .INT Document
○ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/
○ Currently in IETF Last Call
K. Davies: You would have seen that John Klensin had a substantial
response, especially to the notion that RFC 1591 was appropriate to
amend, given its status and legacy and the views others have. I think we
should consider this carefully. Some of his review also speaks to IETF
process questions. I'll respond to him about IANA-specific issues.
L. Eggert: There's a low-intensity ongoing discussion where a small part
of the community questions whether the IETF/IESG can do anything with
the status of RFCs in the legacy stream, suggesting they're out of
control of the IETF. Although pragmatically, who else would be able to
do this? We're hitting this with other documents as well. You can tell
Warren that this aspect needs to be figured out on the IESG side.
-Licensing IANA Registries:
○ The statement has been posted at
https://www.iana.org/help/licensing-terms
○ Added the link to the protocol registries
- Registry workflow system
○ Estimated completion of development July 2022 for PEN application
- TZ Database: Editorial Dispute
○ A pseudo-fork has been created by Colebourne, but the fork merely
maps deltas from IANA source. Some downstream projects signaled they
will use the fork.
○ IANA is continuing to monitor the situation
K. Davies: The dispute is about an editorial philosophy concerning
historical data. The IESG-designated expert and backup both take a
minimalist view and have been stripping out some things they consider
questionable. Others say not to take out old data unless it's
demonstrably wrong. This has been flaring up on/off for years. This had
been quiet in recent months, but just recently the main advocate for a
maximalist approach has created a fork that has the deltas that can then
be applied to the TZDB. Better than a full-blown fork. There are one or
two downstream projects, possibly including FreeBSD, that have indicated
that they're going to follow the fork. It appears that there is room for
compromise, perhaps where the TZDB could include the fork, but that's my
observation, and I'm not sure we have a role to play. We continue to
monitor.
R. Housley: Have you offered to host both files?
K. Davies: I have not. We've tried not to step into editorial disputes.
But if that's a useful step, we can take it under consideration. But we
don't want to be seen as taking sides.
R. Housley: I don't think the IESG want to step in either. It just seems
less forky if they're in the same place.
K. Davies: Paul Eggert controls the whole repository, rather than giving
us edits to apply. Two repos could sit with IANA.
- ftp.iana.org
○ Internal discussion prompted by the IETF turning down their FTP
service
○ Plan on supporting FTP service for the foreseeable future
- IETF 112 Office Hours received 14 visits which included such topics as
discussion about I-Ds due to early reviews
• Upcoming Meeting Schedule
○ IESG/IAB Retreat
- Proposed IETF/IANA Meeting schedule:
○ In-Person or Virtual July 2022 (Philadelphia) – M. Kuehlewind asked
IANA to give an update to the IAB
○ In-Person or Virtual November 2022 (London)
NEW ACTION ITEMS:
None.
MEETING MINUTES - END
–End IANA Liaison Report, Sabrina Tanamal–
–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
IRTF chair report to the IAB for the month ending 15 June 2022.
Research Groups
NMRG review with IAB took place on 1 June 2022.
ANRP
ANRP award talks for IETF 114 will be given by Sam Kumar and Tushar
Swamy. Details to be announced shortly https://irtf.org/anrp/
ANRW
Taejoong (Tijay) Chung (Virginia Tech) and Marwan Fayed (Cloudflare) are
co-chairing. There were fewer submissions than hoped, and discussion is
ongoing to put together a reduced programme comprising peer-reviewed
papers and invited talks.
Documents and Errata
With RFC Editor
• draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch-considerations
• draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2
• draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g
• draft-irtf-nwcrg-coding-and-congestion
• draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs
In IESG Conflict Review
• draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-intent-classification
• draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions
In IRSG Final Poll
• draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo
• draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-generation
• draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history
• draft-irtf-qirg-principles
• draft-irtf-cfrg-hash-to-curve (recently updated; ready for IESG
conflict review)
In IRSG Review
• draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute
• draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping
• draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats
In IRTF Chair Review
• draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines
• draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf
Other Activities
Diversity and ANRW travel grants in progress.
–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–
–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–
The [Temporary RFC Series Project Manager] has been working with the
RSOC on the transition to the new structure. He has been participating
in the recruitment process for the RSCE and it seems plausible if not
overwhelmingly likely that we will find someone this year.
In the meantime he has turned his attention to the prep tool part of the
XML publication process. In principle the prep tool adds mechanically
determined elements and attributes to an XML document to make it easier
to render. In reality what the prep tool RFC 7998 says and what xml2rfc
does are somewhat different, and he is working to get a clear
understanding of the differences so he can, along with the RFC's
authors, advise where to change the code vs the spec.
–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–
This item was deferred to the agenda of the next IAB business meeting.
This item was deferred to the agenda of the next IAB business meeting.
This item was deferred to the agenda of the next IAB business meeting.
The next IAB business meeting will be on 2022-06-22 at 0700 PDT.