INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Narrative Minutes for the May 25, 2006 IESG Teleconference

Scribe: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
Corrections from Dan Romascanue and Ted Hardie - thanks!
                                                                               
1. Administrivia
                                                                               
  1.1 Roll Call

  1.2 Bash the Agenda

David asked for a previously-discussed items management issue.

Sam has been asked by Brian to find someone to deal with the Jefsey appeals.

  1.3 Approval of the Minutes

Minutes for May 11 were approved.

Marshall will be providing May 11 narrative minutes.

  1.4 Review of Action Items

Jari's "Independent vs Individual" project is still underway.

  1.5 Review of Projects
      http://www.unreason.com/jfp/iesg-projects
   
Sam has a new project, on PR actions - no other updates.                                                                    

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-behave-nat-udp-06.txt
    NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP (BCP) - 1 of 4
    Note: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> in sheperd. IETF Last call ends
    2006-05-23
    Token: Magnus Westerlund

DISCUSS ballots so far are clear. Also have last call comments. Expecting a revised IDt.

  o Two-document ballot:  - 2 of 4
     - draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-06.txt
       Definition of Events For Modem, FAX, and Text Telephony Signals
       (Proposed Standard)
       Note: PROTO shepherd magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
     - draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bis-13.txt
       RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones and Telephony Signals
       (Proposed Standard)
       Note: PROTO shepherd Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
    Token: Cullen Jennings

Cullen says Russ's comments are correct and will be fixed. They are small enough to fix with an RFC Editor note.

  o Two-document ballot:  - 3 of 4
     - draft-ietf-rddp-security-09.txt
       DDP/RDMAP Security (Proposed Standard)
       Note: PROTO Sherpherd: David Black (Black_David@emc.com)
     - draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-06.txt
       Applicability of Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and Direct
       Data Placement (DDP) (Informational)
       Note: PROTO Shepherd: David Black (Black_David@emc.com)
    Token: Jon Peterson

Jon says the PROTO shepherd has requested "revised ID needed" and will fix a few things. The DISCUSSes are clear.

  o draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-mpls-09.txt
    Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/HDLC Over MPLS Networks
    (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 4
    Token: Mark Townsley

Sam and Dan balloted NO-OBJ.

Mark says the editor has already revised the draft with Jari's proposed text - does Jari need the draft to post before clearing the DISCUSS? Jari will look at the finished draft - AD followup.

2.1.2 Returning Item
  o draft-ietf-grow-rfc1519bis-04.txt
    Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and
    Aggregation Plan (BCP) - 1 of 1
    Note: Geoff Huston is the proto shepherd
    Token: David Kessens

Ross put in a comment last night that the history isn't exactly right- not important enough to hold up the document, but can we fix it?

Ted also has history concerns. The correction can even be done in AUTH-48 - David will point this out to the authors. But the document is approved with no holds.

2.2 Individual Submissions
2.2.1 New Item
NONE
2.2.2 Returning Item
  o draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-04.txt
    Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP and TCP Headers
    (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1
    Note: 3/20/06: Waiting for -03 version from Bill Fenner to address
    discusses.. 5/5/06: Waiting for Mark to remove his Discuss and/or talk to
    Bill.. 16/5/06: Bill submits a new revision, document placed on next
    telechat agenda.
    Token: Jari Arkko

Most of the comments are editorial - how far do we need to go beyond fixing technical questions? Jari is afraid that the comments are very late in the process - can David work with Bill on this?

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-bmwg-benchres-term-07.txt
    Benchmarking Terminology for Resource Reservation Capable Routers
    (Informational) - 1 of 8
    Note: Proto Spepherd: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
    Token: David Kessens

David believes that the DISCUSS is workable. This document will go AD followup.

  o draft-arberg-pppoe-mtu-gt1492-03.txt
    Accommodating an MTU/MRU greater than 1492 in PPPoE (Informational) - 2 of
    8
    Token: Mark Townsley

Lars and Russ (and Magnus) have DISCUSSes - Mark has sent RFC Editor and IESG Note text on this, intended to deal with all three DISCUSSes. We'll return to this during the call (so Lars and Russ, and Magnus can look at the text).

Everyone cleared their DISCUSSes during the call. The document was approved for publication.

  o draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-reqs-06.txt
    PCE Communication Protocol Generic Requirements (Informational) - 3 of 8
    Token: Ross Callon

Magnus DEFERed this document, but has DISCUSS text - Ted asked if Magnus intends to provide more text, and Magnus does.  The authors need to know they may see additional DISCUSS concerns beyond what's in the tracker so far.

  o draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-04.txt
    Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery (Informational) -
    4 of 8
    Token: Ross Callon

Ross believes the DISCUSSes should be worked offline and don't need to be discussed here. Russ expects a revised ID to be required.

Ted is concerned that the intersection of the MUST requirements for this document may be the NULL set -  some MUST requirements may make other MUST requirements impossible to meet. Does the working group know what MUST requirements they can abandon, if they have to jettison requirements? This is the right time to have the priority conversation. Ted thinks that we've failed to address an equivalent level of complexity in the past, when reviewing existing discovery mechanisms.

Ross believes the authors do have a sense of the priorities (and maybe even the protocol). This could be small changes, just requires thought. Ross expects a revised ID will be needed.

  o draft-ietf-rmt-bb-tfmcc-07.txt
    TCP-Friendly Multicast Congestion Control (TFMCC): Protocol Specification
    (Experimental) - 5 of 8
    Note: PROTO shepherd: lorenzo vicisano lorenzo@cisco.com. IETF last call
    ends 24th of May
    Token: Magnus Westerlund

This document was approved with no discussion.

  o draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-12.txt
    Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms
    (Informational) - 6 of 8
    Note: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> is the proto shepherd
    Token: David Kessens

David believs the DISCUSS is straightforward and can be worked offline. AD Followup.

  o draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt
    ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks (Informational)
    - 7 of 8
    Note: SHEPHERDING WG chair: Kurt Erik Lindqvist, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se
    Token: David Kessens

Ted will send information about why he's ABSTAINing offline (does not want to block the document in any way).

This will go into Revised ID needed.

  o draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
    IPv6 Network Architecture Protection (Informational) - 8 of 8
    Note: PROTO-SHEPHERDING WG chair: Kurt Erik Lindqvist, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se
    Token: David Kessens

Was DEFERed last night.

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-hoffman-taobis-07.txt
    The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force
    (Informational) - 1 of 2
    Token: Brian Carpenter

Brian wasn't present on the call, but Ted is expecting this to require Revised ID needed based on talks with Paul.

Lisa asked if her list of chair responsibilities was complete - Cullen said it was correct, but hadn't thought about completeness.

Russ asked for a mention of quality or clarity in Lisa's third bullet.

  o draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-clarifications-09.txt
    IKEv2 Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines (Informational) - 2 of 2
    Token: Russ Housley

This document was DEFERed once and is now back.

Mark thought it was still DEFERed, and hadn't read the document.

Sam expects to clear his DISCUSS based on e-mail conversations with Pasi and Steve Kent, but is still talking.

Russ suggests "AD Followup", but hopes this document will complete this week (so read it fast, if you haven't read it yet).

3.2.2 Returning Item
  o draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-03.txt
    Experimental Procedure for Long Term Suspensions from Mailing Lists
    (Experimental) - 1 of 1
    Note: Last call ended March 15
    Token: Brian Carpenter

Brian wasn't available on the call, but Sam said he agrees with Mark's DISCUSS. Can we just put an RFC Editor note changing the title and let Brian say whether he agrees?

Mark asked about RFC 2418 being deprecated - Sam said all of the mailing list text in RFC 2418 is being deprecated. Mark asked if the document could be consistently past-tense. Mark also asked for a pointer on one reference - Sam requested AD Followup, but can look up the reference in a couple minutes.

Sam said one suggestion has been made, but the person making the suggestion would be happy without it, and doesn't understand how the suggested sentence would actually come into play in practice. Since the experiment is limited to 18 months, a sanction cannot be greater than RFC 3386 in practice.

Mark will let Amy know if the DISCUSS is cleared by the end of the call, but the document is still going point raised/writeup needed.

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-bivens-sasp-03.txt
    Server/Application State Protocol v1 (Informational) - 1 of 1
    Token: Magnus Westerlund

Ross is also concerned about the same issue as David's DISCUSS.

This draft was DEFERed and will be on the next agenda. Magnus will discuss with the RSERPOOL WG.

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
  o IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks (16ng) - 1 of 1
    Token: Jari Arkko

Jari said the IEEE 802.16 group needed to provide comments on this item, and Russ pointed out that we need comments (which can be done before the next meeting), not just a liaison.

Ted asked Jari to call IEEE 802.16's attention to the question of two encapsulations (if they can make their position clear, that would help us, because our internal discussions aren't terminating).

Russ said that if a formal liaison is required, the working group won't be chartered before the next IETF, and Jari said the work wouldn't be done at all because the group lost the time window. Ted suggested scheduling as a BOF, because there is work to be done whether the group is chartered before the next IETF or not.

Dan said that official liaisons wouldn't be possible before Montreal (next IEEE plenary is following week).

Some discussion of "a third BOF", involving "the rename trick", but Sam believes the IESG can do the right thing, even it it starts out as a third BOF.

This will return for the next agenda. Jari asked for a second note for NewWork (not a second external review, just the note to NewWork). Barbara asked Jari to send a ticket with e-mail addresses and text for posting.

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 holding its retreat next week.

Bernard is sending the link encapsulation considerations draft out.

Leslie has sent a note on IAOC/IAB/RFC Editor interaction, and expects discussion to start when the Indpendent mailing list is set up.

Sam asked where to discuss the question of whether we want independent submissions at all. Leslie thinks the comment would be appropriate for the RFC Editor document, and Sam will send comments on that draft.

Department of Commerce is planning to single-source IANA to ICANN by July., and is looking for comments on the proposal to privatize the IANA function. This process seems to be independent of comments on whether privatization is a good idea or not.

6. Management Issue

 6.1 Expedited processing of draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry (Ted Hardie)

This is holding up a bunch of documents, including RPID for OMA. RPID has been in the queue for a while - this will unjam a bunch of SIMPLE work.

No objection to expedited processing. There's also an IANA dependency for expediting (must create registry before publication)

  6.2 Approving previously discussed documents

David's concern is that we are bringing lots of documents back to the agenda for mostly procedural issues. Do we really need to do this?

Sam's concern is that there's an AD-shopping attack - would be happy with lots of proposals that don't have this attributes.

Ross's concern is that late DISCUSSes may be "too late" - the document might have already been published. Need a deadline for feedback.

Ted says there are items in the queue that are affected by AD turnover - missing "NO-OBJs" on lots of documents. "If we clear the DISCUSSes and the document would have passed under the old rules, is that OK?"

Sam asked what's wrong with "return to agenda" button? Ted doesn't want to increase the amount of review by the IESG - don't need to review by 24 people, only need to review by 16.

Cullen - stop accepting work that they won't finish? That doesn't make sense (Ted and Cullen agree on this).

The review team doesn't change unless the "yes" AD left - if that happens, the review team changes, but if one AD has already reviewed and declared NO-OBJ, the replacement doesn't have to also review the draft as well.

Sam's concern is about ignoring the turnover, not about adding an area.

Ross understands author frustration, but doesn't the document have to clear SOME IESG, either the old one, or the new one? Is this a serious problem, or should we just explain to the new ADs what the history is?

Mark says that we get the same effect if new ADs just copy predecessor positions, including NO-OBJs.

Sam has no problem with this.

Mark thinks the deadline for copying positions is something like two to four weeks after the new IESG members join.

Sam thinks that if you don't get enough NO-OBJs by the deadline, they still need to come back to an agenda. He's concerned about AD-shopping.

Russ pointed out that we're only talking about documents that have been on an agenda once.

Lisa asked how many more documents we'll be seeing that have this issue? We think about 25, and that's every March.

Sam said that normally we won't have so much AD turnover.

Ted asked if ADs would be aware of the possibility of AD shopping ("don't install countermeasures, trust ADs").

Lisa pointed out that this is also trusting ADs to not do the shopping - that's who sends the "this has been approved" note to Amy.

Mark thinks that this can be acommplished without changing the rules at all - just process both DISCUSSes and NO-OBJs. This is roughly what we do today.

Sam - can we just decide now that anyone who wants to enter a position by the next telechat should do so, and any document that gets enough votes will be approved. Do any of the new ADs on the call care about this?

Russ - do you trust the previous AD to have done his job?

Ross - or just didn't have time to look at the document...

Mark - if you don't trust the previous AD, enter DISCUSSes on every document and get them resolved.

Cullen - got to either clear with the old AD or with the new one - those are the choices.

Mark - Bill's list of documents that need new positions needs to be generated before and after the transition.

Cullen - we've had biggest turnover ever, and we only had 25-30 documents that are affected.

Ross - not sure two weeks is enough for a new AD, but four weeks should be.

Cullen - don't have strong opinions on this.

Mark - can we set a deadline for this? Everyone copies position unless you smell trouble.

Ross - can we get an automated feed of this list?

Russ - thinks Bill has the tool for this.

Sam - does anyone object to a deadline? of two weeks from now?

Ross - want the list of documents.

Sam - just look in the tracker at AD Evaluation.

Lisa - am OK if the document has enough manually-registeed votes to pass without me looking at it before it gets enough votes.

Sam - does this mean the deadline has already passed?

Ross - since we're talking about this today, shouldn't today be the deadline?

Mark - it's about what we haven't looked at, because we haven't had time.

Ross - would be OK with two week deadline.

Sam thinks we've converged this time. Mark said we need to remember this procedure every March.

  6.3 Prime for Jefsey Appeals - Sam, channeling Brian

Sam is willing to summarize the appeals for the IESG, but has strong opinions and did the last appeals. Can we toss this over the fence to the IAB?

Ted thinks that we have to respond before punting to the IAB. Leslie says the IAB is likely to send it back to the IESG because it wasn't handled by IESG.

Ross is concerned that new ADs aren't aware of the context (but that doesn't mean Ross is unbiased and volunteering).

Magnus agreed to take the lead on the current round of appeals. Everyone owes him a beer. Perhaps something stronger.

7. Agenda Working Group News

Jari Arkko - no
Ross Callon - people are going to NANOG to talk about OPSEC documents with operators
Brian Carpenter - not present
Lisa Dusseault - no
Lars Eggert - TSVWG and DCCP rechartering
Bill Fenner - not present
Ted Hardie - LEMONADE and EAI have upcoming interim meetings, and were able to resolve their overlapping schedule conflicts for these meetings.
Sam Hartman - no
Russ Housley - HOAKEY and NEA will both have BOFs (lots of mailing list discussion, and both groups think they should be chartered before Montreal)
Cullen Jennings - no
David Kessens - no
Jon Peterson - no
Dan Romascanu - ADSLMIB document requested hold on publication at author/WG chair request to correct an error. Dan has discussed draft on scripting for a NETCONF application with David - creating a "NETTEST" mailing list to see if this work goes anywhere.
Mark Townsley - no
Magnus Westerlund - no

Post-agenda - Cullen said there are about 25 documents that have almost no votes - apparently these are Experimental or Informational, and ADs are not required to enter positions (although one YES and ten ABSTAINs would be a problem!)