INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative Minutes for the March 16, 2006 IESG Teleconference

Scribe: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>

1. Administrivia
                                                                               
  1.1 Roll Call
  1.2 Bash the Agenda

Brian requested the removal of a PR-action appeal response.

David asked for discussion of IETF List moderation as an addition.

We moved "IAB news you can use" so that IAB types could participate in this section of the telechat.

  1.3 Approval of the Minutes

February 16 narrative minutes were approved with one edit.(the whips will FINISH updating their job descriptions). Spencer will make this change and resend.

March 2 telechat minutes were discussed with a organization restatement for Dan.

  1.4 Review of Action Items

Bert will update the phone number example before he steps down.

  1.5 Review of Projects
      http://www.unreason.com/jfp/iesg-projects

Jon asked people to check the list and update status before the AD turnover happens, so projects can be assigned new owners.

Brian asked about making the Wiki a project - Jon agrees, and Brian volunteered, looking for a second stuckee. Allison pointed out that the IAD is affected by many of the productivity topics, and Brian said we will agree on stuckees in the next couple of weeks.

2. Protocol Actions
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"

2.1 WG Submissions
2.1.1 New Item
  o Four-document ballot:  - 1 of 8
     - draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-12.txt
       A DNS RR for Encoding DHCP Information (DHCID RR) (Proposed Standard)
     - draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-12.txt
       The DHCP Client FQDN Option (Proposed Standard)
     - draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-11.txt
       Resolution of FQDN Conflicts among DHCP Clients (Proposed Standard)
     - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-04.txt
       The DHCPv6 Client FQDN Option (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Margaret Wasserman

There is one DISCUSS, and David had dropped off the call, so this moves to AD Followup. David had offered to move his DISCUSS to a COMMENT.

  o draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-09.txt
    Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup
    Operations (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 8
    Note: IETF Last Call ends March 9th.. Sofar only one minor comment has been
    received.
    Token: Bert Wijnen

Approved. Allison noted that there are Net 10 examples, so this goes to Point Raised and Bert will follow up.

  o Two-document ballot:  - 3 of 8
     - draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-06.txt
       Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)
       (Proposed Standard)
     - draft-ietf-netconf-prot-12.txt
       NETCONF Configuration Protocol (Proposed Standard)
    Token: Bert Wijnen

Bert said IANA is still discussing whether the port number should be above or below 1024 (BEEP and SOAP are also requesting ports, and the issue is that we have about 300 ports below 1024 left).

Sam asked if SOAP can use a single port (or do they need another for TLS as well)? HTTP Upgrade would work if anyone implemented it...

Allison said the IANA committee has a strong concern about moving ports.

Bill said we've been discussing whether the "system range" is even meaningful any more, but there's not a decision yet, and it would be good to make a decision because questions like this keep coming up.

Bill said he is inclined to close the system space and give three ports (because this is the sensible thing to do, with three transports).

Bert said that we should be asking for a reason for three ports, and the better the reason is, the better we like it, but given a good reason, the IESG won't push back.

  o draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-11.txt
    Cable Device Management Information Base for Data-Over-Cable Service
    Interface Specification Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination
    Systems (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 8
    Note: PROTO-shepherding by Jean Francois: jf.mule@cablelabs.com
    Token: Bert Wijnen

Approved with no objections and no discussion. RFC Editor notes are true and correct, per Bert.

  o draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis-13.txt
    RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 8
    Note: Last Call ends 3-16 / PROTO shepherd:
    magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com / media types review:
    http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2006-February/001653.html
    Token: Allison Mankin

Approved with no objections and no discussion. RFC Editor note is good, per Allison.

  o draft-ietf-sasl-rfc2222bis-15.txt
    Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) (Proposed Standard) - 6 of
    8
    Token: Sam Hartman

Brian and Allison entered NO-OBJ.

Sam said that IANA has significant issues that have been discussed with the authors, but hadn't heard back from the authors. Sam will take a DISCUSS for part of Dan's comments and part of Michelle's comments, so this will go to AD Followup (for an hour).

  o draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-05.txt
    MIME type registration for RTP Payload format for H.224 (Proposed Standard)
    - 7 of 8
    Note: Last Call ends 3/16 / PROTO shepherd: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
    / media types review:
    http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2006-February/001654.html
    Token: Allison Mankin

This document was approved with no objections and no discussion. RFC Editor note is good, per Allison.

  o rfc2613.txt
    Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switch Networks Version 1.0
    (Draft Standard) - 8 of 8
    Note: IETF Last Call ended on March 9th
    Token: Bert Wijnen

Alex entered NO-OBJ.

Bert will not issue errata boilerplate or security considerations. Errata isn't supposed to be substantative. Russ and Sam say that it's OK to not "raise the bar" on a document that met the bar when it goes to Draft Standard.

2.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-07.txt
    Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay Over MPLS Networks
    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
    Token: Mark Townsley

Sam entered NO-OBJ.

This document was approved with no discussion and no objections. Mark confirmed that the RFC Editor notes were correct.

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
  o draft-songlee-aes-cmac-prf-128-03.txt
    The AES-CMAC-PRF-128 Algorithm for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE)
    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3
    Token: Russ Housley

Sam entered NO-OBJ.

This document was approved with no discussion and no objections.

  o draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt
    Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP and TCP Headers
    (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3
    Note: Please evaluate the -03 version at:
    http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/tmp/draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-03.txt
    Token: Margaret Wasserman

This document has several DISCUSSes. Margaret said they have been discussed in e-mail and Bill knows what to do. Mark's DISCUSS points out that RFC 3692 says it's OK to steal a port for experimentation and keep using it. Sam said that's what people do anyway.

Brian suggested adding RFC 3692 to the update list.

Do people think that we should explicitly assign port numbers for experimentation? Bill will write text about why we need to assign these things ("reading the mind of Thomas Narten"). The working assumption is that emphemeral ports don't need to be allocated.

Allison - should we be pointing to the private port space for dynamic ports? Brian doesn't think it makes sense to allocate dynamic ports for testing. Allison said AVT does this all the time (it's what servers and clients do). Bill will track down where the current discussion came from with Thomas and do the right thing, and will also look at security considerations (since RFC 3692 doesn't have any).

This went as "revised ID needed", and the secretariat starts publishing on Monday.

The departing AD names are removed from the tracker for balloting at the end of the week.

Barbara said the departing ADs have tracker permission, except for balloting, for 30 days after the AD membership changes, and Margaret confirmed that departing AD positions can no longer be updated after next Friday.

Barbara said the one thing that doesn't happen instantly is the "Technical Advisor" assignments - please work these assignments with new/old ADs and send updates (these will be listed as "TBD" until there's an update).

  o draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt
    Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format
    (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 3
    Token: Margaret Wasserman

Margaret said "revised ID needed", will confirm criteria before returning to working group.

2.2.2 Returning Item
NONE

3. Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"

3.1.1 New Item
  o draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-06.txt
    A Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents (Informational) - 1 of 2
    Note: PROTO Shepherd: Mark Allman
    Token: Jon Peterson

This document was approved with no discussion. Jon confirmed that the RFC Editor notes are correct in the tracker.

  o draft-ietf-pce-architecture-04.txt
    A Path Computation Element (PCE) Based Architecture (Informational) - 2 of
    2
    Token: Alex Zinin

Russ has a DISCUSS about emphasizing authentication, and Alex thinks the DISCUSS is clear. Revised ID needed.

Sam is DEFERing this document (sorry!), but this still Revised ID needed. He doesn't think there's a DISCUSS coming, but it's important enough to read.

Ted said that DEFER on a call has happened before on telechats...

Does this need to be back on another telechat? It's coming back anyway. Alex will have authors work on Russ's DISCUSS in the intervening two weeks.

3.1.2 Returning Item
NONE

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"

3.2.1 New Item
  o draft-crockford-jsonorg-json-04.txt
    JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) (Informational) - 1 of 3
    Token: Scott Hollenbeck

Margaret asked whether JSON is a company (is this giving credibility to JSON.org?). Sam said the name existed before the organization. Bert said there's a proposal to change the name.

Ted pointed out that MAC filetypes must also be updated in registrations.

Approved/point raised/writeup needed for RFC Editor note.

  o draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt
    Experimental Procedure for Long Term Suspensions from Mailing Lists
    (Experimental) - 2 of 3
    Note: Last call ends March 15
    Token: Brian Carpenter

Brian has gotten late last call comments on this document (Lansing Sloan). Gen-ART review comment is understood.

Allison asked whether having the old IESG as reviewers for this proposal makes sense (because so many ADs are leaving). Ross pointed out that the existing ADs are the ones who have been living with the situation so far, so this is OK.

Sam suggested bringing this back on the agenda for the 30th, and adding a management topic about implementation.

  o draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt
    Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE 802.1 WG (Informational)
    - 3 of 3
    Note: IETF Last Call ends on March 17th.. Some IETF Last Call comments
    (mainly editorial) have been received.. I'd like to see IESG comments as
    well, so we can do one more revision during IETF week and then hopefully be
    done with this one.
    Token: Bert Wijnen

Bert asked about the "legal counsel" comment raised. There have been quite a few changes requested - will get legal counsel to look at the revised document. We may be able to get some Jorge counsel time in Dallas and clear this next week.

Revised ID needed.

3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.3 Individual Submissions Via RFC Editor
The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.
                                                                              
             
Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on
to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.


3.3.1 New Item
NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
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 Security Issues in Network Event Logging (syslog) - 1 of 1
    Token: Sam Hartman

Sam has received "we plan to implement" from four vendors, so recommends that we approve this working group rechartering.

Allison asked whether the vendors were participating in the working group and Sam said that they were.

Approved, rechartering announcement will be sent.

5. IAB News We can use

Leslie said that Rich Draves will not be available as executive director, going forward, and IAB has gotten a nominee from NOMCOM, and Leslie expects to reply today.

6. Management Issue

6.1 Decision on PR-Action against JFC Morfin (Brian Carpenter)

This decision passed and will be published with who voted which way. Scott has drafted an announcement which was circulated to the ADs   - have people seen it? Brian will send the text and a ticket to send the announcement tomorrow.

Some discussion of managing/moderating the IETF list followed, prompted by David.

Brian thought we should rely on the sergeants-at-arms, but that any actions should only be in reaction to inappropriate future postings. It was observed that although the IETF list sometimes has a poor signal-to-noise ratio, it is the list for general IETF topics, so has wide scope. Several people believed that it would be wrong to remove posting rights on that list without giving a person notice about off-topic or offensive postings. Ted volunteered to draft a general message on this topic.

6.2 approval of appeal response to Dean Anderson (Brian Carpenter)

This appeal is really directed at the IAB but came first to the IESG to respect the process. Brian sent draft text to the ADs. The IESG rejected the appeal (i.e. confirmed its decision to take a PR-Action against Dean Anderson).

6.3 approval of appeal response to JFC Morfin (Brian Carpenter)

Was removed from the agenda at the end of the call.

7. Agenda Working Group News
(discussion here about four-document DHCP ballot moving to point raised/revised ID needed so they don't need to come back for approval).