1. Review of Action Items
2. Review of Documents
3. Liaison Reports
As a followup on the issues of IESG process raised at the previous IESG plenary, it was
reported that the IESG is discussing organizational and process options. It was anticipated that views from the IAB will be sought at a later stage within this process.
RFC EDITOR
IRTF
The Name Space Research Group has submitted a document outlining
the perspectives of some of the group members for RFC publication
as an individual submission.
The IAB discussed with the IRTF chair the potential for some form of periodic IAB review of research group status reports. It was envisaged that such a process would allow for clearer understanding of current IRTF activities, more informed assessment of proposals for new research groups and better understanding of the potential to fold research group outputs into current IETF activities. Vern Paxson will circulate a proposal for IAB consideration along these lines.
The IAB discussed a proposal to form a simulation research group, noting the potential for simulation to support IETF protocol development, and noting that simulation is widely used as a research tool to assist in understanding the dynamics of protocol behaviour under certain conditions. There is also some interest in the potential use of simulation techniques as part of a more formal validation process for standards-track protocols. It was suggested that this proposal could be further refined and then presented as a BOF at the Atlanta IETF.
ISOC
ITU-T
W3C
PSO-PC and ICANN
The period for nominations for a PSO-nominated ICANN Board member position closed without any nominations being received. The PSO PC, by majority vote, determined to extend the nomination period until the 15th August.
The IAB reiterated its recommendation that the IETF members of the PSO-PC cast votes on PSO decisions in such a manner that the PSO refrain from making any binding decisions in this interim period until the formal dissolution of the PSO.
While the IAB is not in a position to make absolute undertakings in this respect, the IAB was happy to provide assurance that the current arrangements were not
considered to be interim in any way, and that any change in delegation of a technical operator would be undertaken with due consideration of the interests of all interested stakeholders and with appropriate consultation.
The IAB noted that a Nomcom liaison should be selected by early September.
It was noted that these documents are intended for different audiences and while they are relevant to consideration of the architecture of the Internet, they do not undertake the same function as RFC1958 in terms of an architectural specification.
The IAB concluded that it would be productive to close off the architectural changes activity, and refocus activity on a revision of the implications of the end-to-end principle in relation to Internet architecture.
There is insufficient interest to undertake a interoperability workshop in the latter half of 2002. A proposal for an IPv6 deployment security workshop was discussed by the IAB, looking at the issues involved with various IPv6-related mechanisms and their security implications. A proposal will be generated that describes this in further detail.
The IAB reviewed the recent discussion of technical and administrative contacts for the .arpa domain, and where there is overlap with the of the IETF IANA function, will ensure that the proposed task description is consistent with RFC3172.
(below)
(below)
IESG
4. ITU Liaison Responses
It was reported that IESG was reviewing the draft-ymbk architectural guidelines and philosophy document. Any comments from IAB members were requested to be forwarded to the draft authors.
The RFC Editor has reported on the state of the RFC Editor queue, describing the status of the documents in the queue, to the chair of the IETF and the IAB.
Vern Paxson provided the IAB with an update on IRTF activities.
Lynn St.Amour was not available to present a liaison report. Fred
Baker (current ISOC BoT chair) said he had nothing to report.
Considered under Item 4.
Nothing to report.
The PSO PC members reported on the outcomes of the PSO PC meeting of the 24th July. The ISO application for PSO membership was not accepted by the PSO PC. The IETF representatives opposed this application on the grounds that the ICANN Board in July 2002 adopted a resolution which includes the winding up of the PSO, as per the IAB's advice.
As reported in the previous IAB meeting, the IAB understands that the ITU-T has invested effort in establishing
relationships with the IAB's designated technical operator for
e164.arpa (RIPE NCC), and the ITU-T is concerned that the current e164.arpa
management process description appears to suggest that the IAB can
change the designation of the technical operator for e164.arpa
without adequate consideration of the ITU's involvement and processes.
5. IETF Nomcom Liaison Considerations
The IAB discussed the topic of provision of a set of guidelines to the IAB liaison member of the IETF Nominations Committee (Nomcom). It was noted that a bidirectional flow of information with respect to Nomcom consideration of IESG nominations would improve the process of the confirmation of IESG candidates. The IAB also discussed the role of the liaison in terms of the status of the liaison as a peer member of the Nomcom and the role of acting as a conduit between the Nomcom and the liaising body. No conclusion or recommendation was reached, noting that this discussion is also underway in the Nomcom WG list.
6. Architectural Documents
The IAB reviewed the status of the effort to revise RFC 1958 ("Architectural Principles of the Internet"), currently published as an internet-draft (draft-iab-arch-changes-00.txt), in the light of related work on architectural considerations (draft-iab-considerations-00.txt) and philosophy (draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-05.txt) as well as the Blumenthal and Clark paper on rethinking the design of the Internet (http://www.ana.lcs.mit.edu/anaweb/PDF/Rethinking_2001.pdf).
7. Improving IAB BoF Review process
The IAB discussed its processes regarding BoF Review. It was considered useful to be able to assign BoF tasks to IAB members earlier in the process, in order to allow more time for reading of the BoF material and related documents. It would also allow the BoF reviewer more time to review the BoF proposal with the relevant IESG Area Directors prior to the scheduled BoF session. Given the revisions of the IETF agenda and other commitments from IAB members it is not feasible to advance the BoF signup period, and instead the IAB may wish to use the initial BoF laugh test notice as a trigger for consideration of the work proposal.
8. Meetings for the remainder of the year
It was noted that the Atlanta meeting will schedule WG sessions on Tuesday evening and the IETF social on Sunday evening. The IAB considered alternatives for scheduling a business meeting without definite conclusion.
9. IAB/IESG participation in ICANN RSSAC
The IAB has received an invitation (attached) to designate a representative to participate in the RSSAC. The IAB designated Rob Austein to undertake this task for the IAB.
10. IANA tasks and Whois data concerning .arpa tld
Scott Bradner, ISOC V-P Standards, joined the IAB for consideration of this agenda item.
The IAB was briefed on the status of activities concerning the status of the protocol parameter registration role associated with IETF standards documents. The IAB will prepare a detailed description of this role as part of a broader examination of the most effective manner in which this IETF function can be undertaken.
These minutes were prepared by Geoff Huston; comments should be sent to iab-execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: ftp://ftp.iab.org/in-notes/IAB/IABmins/
IAB Web page is at http://www.iab.org
Subject: [Re: RSSAC Attendees]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:53:40 -0700
From: Louis Touton
To: Leslie Daigle
CC: Jun Murai, John Crain
As I believe John mentioned to Harald, the Root Server System Advisory
Committee would like very much to have renewed IESG/IAB participation in
the RSSAC's work. (Please excuse the delay in getting this formal
invitation to you; I'll accept the blame as ICANN secretary for not
seeing that the invitation went out sooner.)
Although most of the participants in the RSSAC (such as root-nameserver
operators and RIR personnel) are involved in one way or another in IETF
work, they participate in the RSSAC from their own, non-IETF
perspectives. In its early stages, the RSSAC had designated IETF
representatives, but this practice fell dormant. At its meeting in
Yokohama, the RSSAC discussed the desirability of renewed IESG/IAB
participation on the committee, and the members broadly supported the
desirability of greater IESG/IAB participation.
The RSSAC recognizes that IESG/IAB rely on volunteer resources, which
are necessarily of limited quantity. Nonetheless, the RSSAC believes
that it would be very helpful to have designated IESG/IAB participation
in the RSSAC for the following reasons:
1. IESG/IAB participation will provide a valuable information
channel/liaison between the IESG/IAB and ICANN. This should improve the
information flow in both directions. For example, the RSSAC members
feel they would benefit from an IETF "management" perspective of the
technical community's needs and expectations from the root-nameserver
system. Conversely, the RSSAC members feel that the IETF's work in
developing technical standards and advice could benefit from a more
detailed understanding of the operational circumstances faced by those
involved in operating the system.
2. The IETF (and particularly IESG/IAB) has a great deal of
DNS-related expertise that is not reflected on the RSSAC. It is
important that the perspectives of the "users" (their needs, etc.), and
not just those of the operators, be taken into account in the RSSAC's
work.
3. The RSSAC is chartered to provide the ICANN Board with technical
advice specifically about the root-nameserver system. Because the IESG
and IAB play an important role in advising the ICANN Board on the
technical implications of its actions more generally, close consultation
between the RSSAC and IESG/IAB can assist in ensuring that the advice of
the two bodies is given to the ICANN Board from a consistent knowledge
base.
4. Having a designated "official" liaison will help reduce
misunderstandings between the RSSAC and IETF/IAB about each others'
intentions/activities.
The RSSAC would greatly appreciate the IESG and IAB designating
representatives to participate in the RSSAC's work. As to time
commitments, the RSSAC ordinarily meets once at the venue of each IETF
meeting, usually on the Sunday before the meeting. The RSSAC maintains
a mailing list at which committee business is discussed. The RSSAC also
prepares various reports and advisory documents to ICANN; these are
ordinarily done by working subgroups of the RSSAC. The assistance of
IESG/IAB representatives in these working groups would be welcome, but
is not necessary. What the RSSAC would value most is participation in
its meetings plus the opportunity to consult with designated IESG/IAB
representatives as specific matters of common interest may arise between
meetings.
On behalf of the RSSAC, I hope that the IESG and IAB will be able to
find the resources to designate representatives to participate in the
RSSAC.
Best regards,
Louis