INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Summarized Agenda for the
March 30, 2006 IESG Teleconference
Narrative scribe: Spencer Dawkins
<spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
1.
Administrivia
1.1 Roll Call
Bill is recovering from being moved down the
roll call order (apparently NOMCOM selected new ADs based on last-name
alphabetical order).
1.2 Bash the Agenda
Working group
charter discussion was moved to the beginning of the call.
Ross reminded
people to make reservations for the retreat in May.
1.3 Approval
of the Minutes
Spencer has sent narrative minutes for the last two
meeting. Comments/revisions should happen in the next week.
1.4
Review of Action Items
Bert has sent the "example phone numbers" e-mail.
This was the only action item on the list.
1.5 Review of
Projects
http://www.unreason.com/jfp/iesg-projects
Wiki
is first 2006 project.
Brian asked Jon to send a note about the projects
that will need responsible ADs/
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
draft-ietf-sasl-plain-08.txt
The Plain SASL Mechanism
(Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
Token: Sam
Hartman
Ross entered NO-OBJ for this draft.
Mark's DISCUSS is
pretty simple - introduction talks about "unencrypted" versus "unsecured". Sam
believes that we have consensus that encryption is required - the document talks
about "such as TLS", so Mark believes there is some ambiguity ("what about
physical security, etc.").
Russ pointed out that we have guidance for "no
plain-text passwords". We have Last Call comments on the need for encryption in
this draft, and IESG isn't willing to override Last Call
comments.
One-time SASL passwords would work over unencrypted links, but
this isn't one-time SASL.
Sam thinks clearer text here would be
helpful.
Sam is willing to take the "encryption versus secure" question
back to the IETF list to make sure we understand.
We are discussing
comments from Jeff Schiller that may have been around longer than
Brian-the-IETF-Chair. Given this archeology, Brian asked Sam to took for text
that makes sense to Mark without changing the working group's position. Sam
asked Mark to help with this text, and Mark agreed to do so.
o
draft-ietf-pkix-sim-07.txt
Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Subject Identification Method
(SIM)
(Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
Token: Russ
Housley
Ross entered a NO-OBJ position on this document.
Russ
asked if Ted has seen the response from the authors. Ted has seen them but
doesn't understand clearly what the authors are proposing to do with proposed
text, and Russ doesn't either. "When is binding IDs better than using
certificates?"
Ted is concerned about language on trust assumptions
("identity theft never occurs"). There are cases where employee numbers (for
example) need to be associated with certificates, and this is different from
creating an S/MIME message with a certificate.
Russ thinks this may be
more than one round-trip ("AD follow-up").
Lisa also sent text to Russ on
this text.
Russ
2.1.2 Returning Item
NONE
2.2
Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
o
draft-mcgrew-aes-gmac-esp-02.txt
The Use of Galois Message
Authentication Code (GMAC) in IPsec ESP and AH
(Proposed
Standard) - 1 of 2
Note: The T11 FC-SP Working Group
needs RFC number by Friday, May 19th.
Token: Russ
Housley
Ross stated NO-OBJ for this draft.
Russ said he's waiting
to hear from all of the authors on a proposed change (which is an RFC Editor
note).
Cullen asked about a reference. Russ said that 800-38D has not
been published (early April at the earliest).
o
draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-03.txt
Internationalized
Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
(XMPP) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
Token: Ted Hardie
Ross stated NO-OBJ for this
draft.
Sam asked if the use of Authority field was consistent with the
way URI uses authority. Ted and Lisa think that this is true. Sam's concern is
that this is more about a machine than a resource - will discuss this with Lisa
offline.
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-pce-architecture-04.txt
A Path Computation
Element (PCE) Based Architecture (Informational) - 1 of
2
Token: Ross Callon
Ross asked for a week to look
at this document (this would have been a DEFER, but it was already DEFERed
before Ross became an AD). Alex had voted "yes", but Ross thinks it's important
to look at this.
o
draft-ietf-mboned-msdp-mib-01.txt
Multicast Source
Discovery protocol MIB (Experimental) - 2 of 2
Token: Dan
Romascanu
This document was approved with no discussion or objections
during the telechat.
Bill noted that he had discussions with Bert about
the RFC Editor notes that are associated with this draft. Dan is making sure and
will send his "OK".
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-westerlund-mime-dls-01.txt
Media
Type Registrations for Downloadable Sounds for MIDI (Informational) -
1 of 1
Token: Ted
Hardie
Ted said that Jari's comment could be clarified during
AUTH48.
This document was approved without discussion during the
telechat.
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
o draft-zorn-radius-port-type-03.txt
Additional Values for
the NAS-Port-Type Attribute (Informational) - 1 of 1
Token: Dan Romascanu
Brian will move his DISCUSS to a COMMENT. Dan
pointed out that a 04 version was submitted a couple of hours ago, but IESG
hasn't seen it yet.
There is no objection to RFC Editor publishing this
as an Informational RFC.
3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE
3.3.3 For
Action
o draft-xdlee-idn-cdnadmin-06.txt
Registration and Administration Guideline for Chinese Domain Names
(Informational) - 1 of 1
Note: RFC
Editor submission for RFC 3932 processing
Token: Brian
Carpenter
Brian pointed out that the authors represent both the Taiwan
and PRC NICs, and this needs an AD to shepherding the document.
Ted says
that this document should explicitly limit its scope to RFC 3743-compliant
registries - other uses in the domain name system will lead to problems when you
register traditional Chinese characters. Could another AD shepherd this, so Ted
can comment more effectively here?
Mark suggested that "Option 2/Does not
conflict" would allow Ted to comment freely, but Mark can shepherd this draft
(at least for now). Mark can bring this back to the next telechat (it does need
to return).
Will Mark ask WGs? At least DNSDIR, and probably Scott
Hollenbeck as well, copying John Klensin as an IDN expert (to avoid surprises
later).
4. Working Group Actions
4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for
IETF Review
o FEC over Transport Framework (fecframe) - 1 of
1
Token: Magnus Westerlund
Dan has sent comments,
which were not show-stoppers. Brian pointed out that non-show-stopper comments
are often handled when comments come back from external review.
Magnus is
OK with doing revised text before it's sent for external review.
Sam
thinks this is a very broadly-scoped working group - not a problem, but could be
more successful if it was narrowly scoped.
Cullen spoke in favor of
sending out revised text (so that the external review comments are on something
like the current text).
Cullen asked for a narrowed range of algorithms
("thousands of pages of research"). Magnus thinks that the scope is actually
limited to the algorithms chosen by RMT. The key focus is to develop a
framework.
Brian thinks that a re-spin seems appropriate (with agreement
of IESG and potential WG chairs).
Magnus said that this charter was not
discussed during the BOF. Brian says that, in the absence of BOF discussion, the
agreement is still within the IESG and potential WG chairs.
Cullen
offered to work with Magnus to make sure that the proposed charter text says
what Magnus thinks it says.
"Approved pending edits to the charter from
Magnus".
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
NONE
5. IAB
News We can use
IAB is more active than you'd expect, right now. Are
planning another retreat ("maybe in Iceland").
IAB is thinking about
"Routing and Adressing Workshop (RAW)", but hasn't gelled yet (David is pushing
for late summer or early fall). May co-locate with NANOG or avoid it, haven't
picked a date yet.
Working with ISOC on IETF Journal, but that's going
slowly.
Doing IPv6/SHIM6 BOF at RIPE in Instanbul - first time to discuss
with European carriers.
NOMCOM has a long "short list" of candidates to
replace Pekka Nikander.
There was an issue with moving part of .arpa, but
this has happened.
IAB is thinking about "net neutrality".
6.
Management Issue
6.1 Ted Hardie as IAB liaison (Brian
Carpenter)
This is through May, and will be discussed at the IESG retreat
in May.
6.2 Formally Remove Bert Wijnen in Expert Review Team (Dan
Romascanu)
This has been discussed with Keith and with Bert. Amy will use
exact words from the management issue for the announcements.
6.3
Retreat logistics
Now have a hotel, can and should make our reservations
within the next few days. Ross has verified that this works, using the URL that
Brian forwarded.
Sam and Barbara are official dining
committee...
Please make sure that Ross has your arrival/departure times
for meal planning, etc.
Scott Bradner thinks there is wireless in the
room (need to doublecheck). Sam can provide a projector if there isn't one
available already.
Brian has sent a draft agenda around - please send
comments, because Brian doesn't want all the topics coming from
Brian.
6.4 message to mailing list maintainers/wg chairs
Brian
added this during 6.3 discussion - please speak up if you disagree with the text
Ted wrote (enforcing should not be automatic). This will go to working group
chairs and mailing list maintainers, from either the IESG or Brian speaking for
the IESG.
We probably need to assemble the list of mailing list
maintainers (which Henrik may have, but we need to check).
6.5 New
version of I-D checklist
Bert added text for telephone numbers, etc. Bert
is willing to maintain the list, even as a former AD. Dan will be the
co-maintainer (since he needs to liaise with Bert anyway).
7. Agenda
Working Group News
Jari Arkko - none
Ross Callon - chartering SIDR
- sent out minor update to WG chairs, ADs, got a few comments back. Think we're
close to being finished - telechat in two weeks?
Kireeti has resigned as
co-chair of CCAMP. Ross is talking to potential replacements.
Brian
Carpenter - none
Lisa Dusseault - none
Lars Eggert - will have
some recharterings in the next couple of months (TSVWG, NFSv4)
Bill
Fenner - having a hard time maintaining appearance of no-conflict in WG chairs
(leading candidates for CCAMP are from same companies as Bill and Ross!).
- Dave Meyer - but even ADs are individuals in the IETF, and especially
aren't appointed to put company interests ahead of IETF interests.
- Bill
- have been working to avoid picking people we know
- Brian - and this
will be important in Gen-Area, too
Ted Hardie - LEMONADE will have
questions for security advisor soon (so they need a security advisor
soon).
- Sam asked for details on the question, to assist in
arm-twisting.
- Ted - Luc Pardon has asked IANA to re-open the RFC 3066
registry to add a value. The new BCP 47 registry is now open, however, so
this is not needed. The AD and IANA are working to clear confusion about
how a registry can be active before the RFC establishing it is
published.
Sam Hartman - has closed KINK and IDWG recently. Does
secretariat have ticket to reclassify draft? Yes.
Russ Housley - new WG
chair for PKIX. MOBIKE is close enough to closing that Paul Hoffman will remain
as single chair.
Cullen Jennings - liaison with SG16 on Megaco packages?
3GPP and SG16 collided by asking for the same number - SG16 now asking about
moving registry to ITU-T website.
- Michelle doesn't think conflicts will
be problem in the future
- Cullen doesn't think anyone needs to request
specific numbers anyway
David Kessens - not on call today
Jon
Peterson - SIP-P2P requesting an interim meeting - any procedural considerations
for an interim BOF meeting?
Dan Romascanu - NETCONF list discussions
reflecting meeting non-attendees - may not have consensus between chairs and
editors. Also considering an interim meeting following IETF meeting in Montreal
(Friday afternoon, but may run until Sunday).
- Mark - may confilict
with interim meeting guidelines - supposed to be "interim".
- Dan thinks
the concern is "30 days BEFORE a meeting", not sure we have guidelines for
"AFTER"
- Sam is concerned that this would make it harder to participate
in this work due to preparation time for the interim meeting interfering with
normal meetings. Mark has the same concern (Mark also has token to update the
guidelines). What if people really want to do this? Mark will try to develop
consensus on this for future guidance.
- Brian - can get things done in
interims, especially getting started, but our meetings have never been intended
to be drafting meetings (no matter how many new people expect them to
be).
- Mark - why wouldn't you have to schedule an interim every time you
need to pull consensus together?
- Dan is expecting 20 people to show up,
but the meeting will be open.
- Brian - make sure you don't get surprised
with 100 attendees - do head count before the meeting so you don't have to find
bigger room, etc. Doesn't have process violation concerns, but you may get
comments.
- Mark - could you at least ask these guys about other
dates?
- Dan - did not get consensus for May/June on the mailing
list.
- Mark - really don't want "after the IETF" to be the default when
people can't agree on an interim.
- Brian - does WG know they don't get a
room and cookies for the weekend?
- Mark - travel logistics are the only
reason to do a knock-on meeting
- Brian - "interim" meetings really
should be "in the middle"
- Mark - just pick a time and place, try to
accommodate, but know that you won't make everyone happy
Mark Townsley -
none
Magnus Westerlund - had left by this point