Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-03 2019-02-07 15:00
narrative-minutes-interim-2019-iesg-03-201902071500-00
Meeting Narrative Minutes | Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF | |
---|---|---|
Date and time | 2019-02-07 15:00 | |
Title | Narrative Minutes interim-2019-iesg-03 2019-02-07 15:00 | |
State | (None) | |
Other versions | plain text | |
Last updated | 2024-02-23 |
narrative-minutes-interim-2019-iesg-03-201902071500-00
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) Narrative minutes for the 2019-02-07 IESG Teleconference These are not an official record of the meeting. Narrative Scribe: Liz Flynn, Secretariat 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll call ATTENDEES --------------------------------- Ignas Bagdonas (Equinix) / Operations and Management Area Deborah Brungard (AT&T) / Routing Area Ben Campbell (Oracle) / Applications and Real-Time Area Alissa Cooper (Cisco) / IETF Chair, General Area Michelle Cotton (ICANN) / IANA Liaison Roman Danyliw (CERT/SEI) / Incoming Security Area Spencer Dawkins (Wonder Hamster Internetworking) / Transport Area Liz Flynn (AMS) / IETF Secretariat, Narrative Scribe Sandy Ginoza (AMS) / RFC Editor Liaison Ted Hardie (Google) / IAB Chair Benjamin Kaduk (Akamai Technologies) / Security Area Suresh Krishnan (Kaloom) / Internet Area Mirja Kuehlewind (ETH Zurich) / Transport Area Warren Kumari (Google) / Operations and Management Area Barry Leiba (Huawei) / Incoming Applications and Real-Time Area Terry Manderson (ICANN) / Internet Area Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area Cindy Morgan (AMS) / IETF Secretariat Eric Rescorla (Mozilla) / Security Area Alvaro Retana (Huawei) / Routing Area Adam Roach (Mozilla) / Applications and Real-Time Area Jeff Tantsura (Apstra) / IAB Liaison Martin Vigoureux (Nokia) / Routing Area Amy Vezza (AMS) / IETF Secretariat Eric Vyncke (Cisco) / Incoming Internet Area Magnus Westerlund (Ericsson) / Incoming Transport Area REGRETS --------------------------------- Heather Flanagan / RFC Series Editor Portia Wenze-Danley (ISOC) / Interim LLC Executive Director OBSERVERS --------------------------------- Mehmet Ersue Greg Wood 1.2 Bash the agenda Amy: Anyone have anything to add to thee agenda? Any changes? Great, we'll move on. 1.3 Approval of the minutes of past telechats Amy: Does anyone have an objection to the minutes of the January 24 teleconference being approved? Hearing no objection, so those are approved and we'll get those posted. I also saw narrative minutes; any objection to approving those? Hearing no objection, so those are approved as well. 1.4 List of remaining action items from last telechat Amy: The first four here are a management item at the end of the call so we will mark them as provisionally done. o Eric Rescorla to find designated experts for RFC 6509 (mikey-payloads) [IANA #1121057]. o Eric Rescorla to find designated experts for RFC 6043 (mikey-payloads) [IANA #1121239]. o Eric Rescorla to find designated experts for RFC 6267 (mikey-payloads) [IANA #1121240]. o Eric Rescorla to find designated experts for RFC 6309 (mikey-payloads) [IANA #1121241]. o Alvaro Retana to send email to the IESG with proposed re-labeling of scheduling conflicts. Alvaro: I've been making progress and talking to the Secretariat. o Suresh Krishnan to discuss naming experts for the registries created by draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics with Allison Mankin. Suresh: I did have that conversation and I think Allison is leaning towards the RG chairs doing it, but she's asking IRSG chairs for input. Keep it in progress for now but she's leaning towards the RG chairs recommending experts. o Alissa Cooper to send a message to the community about plenary transcripts for the Q&A sections of the plenary (IAB, LLC Board, and IESG). Amy: I saw this email so I believe we can mark this as done. Alissa: Yes, thank you. o Ben Campbell to write up text on the IESG's expectations regarding conflicts of interest and the disclosure of funding sources. Ben: That one is still in progress and my next one is done. o Ben Campbell to send the email on what updates means to the IETF Community. o Warren Kumari and Spencer Dawkins to develop the spherical routing topic. Warren: Still ongoing; we're making progress and meeting every Friday morning to discuss it. If anyone else is desperate to join, let me know. Amy: Should we keep this as in progress since it's an ongoing topic? Warren: Sure. o Deborah Brungard to summarize the discussion with the WG chairs on community relations and escalating issues. Amy: I saw this so I think this done, right? Deborah: Yes, this is done. o Suresh Krishnan to draft a new proposed IESG Statement on the procedure to reference material behind a paywall, that includes the existing text and adds comments from the discussion, Eric Rescorla, and Barry Leiba. Suresh: I haven't gotten to this yet. 2. Protocol actions 2.1 WG submissions 2.1.1 New items o draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-12 - IETF stream PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (Proposed Standard) Token: Deborah Brungard Amy: I have a number of Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss those today? Deborah: I just added that because Michelle requested it. I don't know. Discussion is going on on the list, so unless Benjamin has something specific I think we should just keep discussion with the authors. Benjamin: Keeping it on the list sounds fine to me. Unfortunately I have not gotten to read the response at all, so I think I have an action item for that. Deborah: Okay. And Benjamin, thank you very much for your very detailed analysis. Amy: So it sounds like this is going to require a Revised ID? Deborah: Definitely Revised ID. Amy: Thank you, we'll move on. 2.1.2 Returning items o draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 - IETF stream The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) (Proposed Standard) Token: Deborah Brungard Amy: I have a couple of Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss any or all of those today? Deborah: Again, I'd say I prefer to let the discussion continue with the authors and chairs, but if there's anything in particular anyone wants to discuss we can do it now. Benjamin: I guess I will just express my sentiment that it's pretty frustrating to have explicit concrete points in the discuss ballot text and have an email discussion that we agree to change them, and then have the document come back with that exact text still in place. Deborah: I can understand. It's difficult because there were a lot of threads and some of them, the authors asked if this was good enough and to please acknowledge. I don't know if that's the one you were talking about but they didn't get a response. I told them to stop revising and constantly uploading. One of them is up to 29 versions now. It was probably a miscommunication. Benjamin: I definitely understand it's frustrating all around. Deborah: I think we have to nail down which ones have not been addressed and why. I told them not to upload any more, just get the text and do an acknowledgement and we'll do one big update. Barry: There are certainly times when you want to hold back updates but just in general, if we're on 29 versions so what? I personally would rather see the update and if it's not quite right they can be updated again. Updates are cheap. Alissa: In this case it didn't help, actually. Batching them together into a larger set of changes would have made the reviews easier and would have made the load on ADs trying to re-review less. Deborah: I agree with you Barry, but this one is a special case. Barry: I've got you. I didn't review this one. Sorry to interrupt. Warren: I usually agree with Barry but this is a special case. At this point everybody is really frustrated with the document and it feels like suggestions that are being provided to make the document more useful are being dismissed. There are a lot of things where providing two or three words of guidance, like "most implementations have turned this off because it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot with it" are getting a [reaction of] "implementers can work it out for themselves." I currently have a Discuss and I don't know if holding it is going to improve the document any more. Comments are being addressed but it doesn't feel like they're being addressed in a way that's making it easier for interoperability or easier for implementers, they're being addressed so ADs stop asking for changes. Deborah: Your comments were at the end here and I'll have the authors look at them more because they're very good comments. I think everyone has been spinning their wheels trying to get Mirja's and Benjamin's included. We will take a look at it. Warren: I think everyone's just frustrated at this point and I fully understand that. Alissa: I wanted to ask about the dependencies on LISP-SEC and the map versioning documents and what the plan is going forward for these. Is the expectation that all four of those will come back again on one telechat or do you think there's going to be further email back and forth to resolve the concerns on these? I know I'm generalizing both of the ones on the telechat. Do we think we're going to have all four of them come back together or will the discusses on these be resolved over email? Deborah: I'm hoping we can resolve them over email. These are the two core documents so they're just waiting to get them there. Hopefully we don't have to bring them back on a telechat. Ekr: I'm pretty uncomfortable approving a document that has a dependency on security properties on some document which has an unspecified date of approval. Unfortunately because of the way these things are designed they're not orthogonal, so I'm not sure how to proceed there. Deborah: What's often done with a lot of routing documents is it's really an extra bit if you're supporting the security or not. So it's really independent that from these documents. And what they did do for you because you were concerned is they did put that it's mandatory to implement. But the bit is there so folks that don't want to implement it, they don't have to. It's mandatory to implement but it's optional to actually do it. And the document was made so it's really independent of these documents. If you really look at how it's done now, they're purely independent. And it's the same with the mapping. The mapping one is an optional capability, the map versioning. These documents are really independent. Benjamin: I have to disagree with the claim that they are independent. I'm going to give two examples and then shut up. For the list security, depending on how LISP-SEC itself goes it's decently likely you'll need an authenticated signal of downgrade, that ITR wants to use LISP-SEC and ETR doesn't. With the current way things are set up, if you try to do that you just fail to communicate entirely. You would want an authenticated signal to the ITR that it should try again without LISP-SEC and in order to do that I believe you will probably want to make a change to 6833. The other example I have is with versioning, where you've got the information in 6830bis about the locator status bits and if the version information changes, the way you interpret those status bits is also going to change, if I understand correctly, so it's plausible to me that the way the versioning stuff is going to play out might make some changes to 6830bis. So to say there's a clear isolation between the documents is not something that's clear to me. Ekr: I agree with that. If people want to have that, then these documents need to state extremely clearly what they believe the properties of the allegedly orthogonal thing is so we can review against that interface boundary and then again on the other side. It's not clear to me that a mandatory to implement but not mandatory to use security mechanism actually meets the Proposed Standard bar at this time. I understand that in many cases we approve routing protocols that are historic and for technical reasons cannot operate in a secured manner, but this seems to be a situation where they absolutely can operate in a secure manner and I don't understand why it can't. That the IETF in 2019 is going to approve a routing security protocol with midrange security strikes me as dubious. Deborah: We've done approvals of other documents where we have exactly the same approach. Ekr: But those are documents that were either extensions of historical documents where we decided not to force retrofitted security, or they were documents where there were technical arguments presented of why security could not be provided and I've seen neither of those cases here. Deborah: This was taken back to the WG and the consensus was that they agreed to do the mandatory to implement, but it had to be optional whether or not it was actually used. Ekr: This is an IETF consensus document, not a WG consensus document. It's a question of what the IETF consensus requirements are. Deborah: We'll continue to discuss it. This is not how we in the Routing area view that we have to always implement and deploy security. Ekr: I'm not espousing that position, I'm saying I think in the past when we've agreed not to implement security there have been technical reasons why the security is difficult to implement and I'm unaware of any such reason in this case. Deborah: So possibly what we could do is come up with some text to explain the tradeoffs and the use cases to say why they feel that way. Ekr: That would be useful. Deborah: That's how we've gotten around it before, we say this is a closed environment and we're not going to force anybody to implement. Spencer: For what it's worth we did the same thing right after I became an AD, where we had these screaming matches about congestion avoidance and the key thing seemed to be describing: what's the deployment scenario where this is going to be used, and if there's more than one, how do the congestion control considerations differ between them? We've been doing that for four or five years now. That was an early point that I saw made in someone else's ballot, which is that this doesn't seem to be intended for deployment at internet scale but the documents don't reflect that. Am I hearing what I thought I was hearing? Ted: In terms of the document not reflecting it, I think if you go back and look at the charter, it says very much the opposite of that. It in fact calls out the need for review by security experts I think in part because of the intention of at least a part of this community to deploy this as widely as possible. In the charter there is no charter text which would justify a claim that this was intended for deployment only in limited environments or without security. Alissa: As far as the limited environments go, we are at the point where the WG authors and IESG are all agreeing that is the scope for this. I thought we had already gotten to that point. Ekr: I think we have but I want to distinguish between the limited environments in terms of how many people are involved and limited environments in terms of the network environment in which it is deployed. My understanding was that it was a closed system and it wasn't internet scale, but that doesn't mean it's not run over open networks. The security considerations are tainted the minute the network isn't secure, not the minute that it's an internet scale system. Deborah: In the beginning of the document it says if you're doing this outside of a closed environment, that's why it's mandated for the vendors to support the security, but for the deployment it's for the operator to decide. We do have the appropriate text there. The document describes the different scenarios. I think we need to have text added to scope it. Ted: I think you may have added it to just the specific docs in front of you, but the charter still says out loud "hence the LISP technology is applicable in both data centers and both public internet environments." I think somebody coming to this work at this stage where these two pieces are not done, it may very well run into the problem Ekr is posing here. Deborah: We've added text to these documents to scope it but we can look at it to see what more has to be done. Warren: I hadn't clearly seen anything narrowing the scope to this, so it seemed wider. That seems to be a thread running through a lot of this discussion, that the authors have been doing it for a while so they're not viewing it through the eyes of someone interested in deploying it who's reading the document and has open questions. There seems to be a fair bit of: we discussed this a while back and people should know it. There are a couple of instances where it points to something in the mail list archives, which is cool if you've been involved with LISP development, but if you're new to it you don't know. Examples of this include things like all implementations have this option turned off. Why don't you mention that? Well, it says it's optional, that's the same thing. I think this could do with a read with fresh eyes. Deborah: I think for your comments we need to look at it and see what we can add. It's no different than the wavelength one we just finished; Benjamin's different pair of eyes really helped to add some clarification. We should definitely be including that type of text, there's no reason not to. I've been following every email but if you feel your comments aren't being looked at twice let me know. Benjamin: So if we could jump back to the security impasse topic, one thing we will frequently do to work around the impasse is to switch the focus from the technology to the properties. An example would be with the one-time keys that are used in the list control plane. We have this property where the confidentiality of that key needs to be preserved in transit between the ITR and the map resolver and again between the map server and the ETR. If we could just flat out say there's a requirement for the confidentiality of this material, that leaves it open for the operators to say that requirement is met by the physical network and then we also provide a technology mechanism that would enforce that confidentiality even if the network itself is not secure. That generalizes to all sorts of security properties we require from this sort of technology. Deborah: That would be great. I think that's a perfect way to say it. Mirja was commenting on the MTU size, and of course the LISP group doesn't want to say that everybody has to have these minimum message sizes, because you'll never be able to transfer anything. The worst case scenario. So we came up with some wording to say that's only if the deployment operator is uneasy and doesn't know what the MTU size is. We can go in and provision MTU sizes on equipment and we don't want to be doing that every time. We have to put the right context there. Mirja: I hadn't had a chance to reply yet from a technical point of view. The comment was on the LISP control packet, so packets that are rather small anyway. I assume most of the control packets are smaller than the main MTU so it can be restricted. It wasn't meant for the tunneling part because those are different documents. I would double check the text and send feedback. Deborah: If you all could try to propose some specific text I think it helps a lot; otherwise the authors don't see what it is they should be adding. Mirja: Coming back to the beginning of the conversation, I find it frustrating they said they couldn't do it instead of trying to figure out if there was a solution. That's why we went back and forth a lot. Deborah: So this one definitely remains in IESG Evaluation and revised ID needed. o draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 - IETF stream Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane (Proposed Standard) Token: Deborah Brungard Amy: Did we just discuss this document in conjunction with the last one or are there new thoughts? Benjamin: I do have one new thought. For a technical perspective on the crypto, this is having a scheme that has a long-term pre-shared key directly to key the protocol level cryptographic operation and we have this BCP 107 that suggests you should be using a key derivation hierarchy so you have a shorter lived key that's being used for the actual on the wire cryptographic message protection. I don't really want to be a hardass and say you need to change this before we can publish it all because that's not very fair to them, but it does seem like we should have a path towards complying with the BCP. I don't have a good sense for do we want to just talk about this now and maybe there's going to be a document in the future, or do we want to try to get some actual concrete work started on what the new mechanism would look like. Spencer: Let me ask the dumb question, which is the common theme on all this stuff has been that someone says something and someone else says "yes that's true, but." For what Benjamin just said is pointing out in this document that the BCP says they should be doing something else, so the people who read the document have the benefit of what Benjamin just said instead of having to figure it out on their own. Is that at all helpful? Benjamin: It seems helpful to me. Ekr: It's helpful, but I'd like them to do the right things. We write these documents for a reason and it's like a should - you'd better have a good reason not to do it, so what's the good reason? Deborah: They may not be aware, and they just need a sentence to say how it should be. I don't see any reason you can't add a sentence to say it should be considered. Spencer: And I'm not saying doing the right thing is the wrong answer. Benjamin: To jump on that, adding a sentence is helpful but it doesn't mean we need to stop at adding a sentence. Ekr: I would like to float again that the easiest way to resolve these issues would be to recycle this document as experimental. There's a vanishing level of widespread interest in using this document and we could simply say we are willing to live with the security properties if we use this as experimental, so I suggest the authors reconsider that. Deborah: The difficulty with that is I think all of these problems are coming about because these documents have been experimental for way too long. When I took over this group four years ago, I said why are you having experimental documents going on with lifetimes of five, six years? Either the document becomes PS or it doesn't. It might as well go away. The problem with experimental documents is you have people out there using this and it think we're doing a disservice to them keeping these experimental documents out there so long. I think this should either go PS or maybe we put it over into the independent stream. It's wrong for IETF to have these documents just hanging there. We should do our due diligence, get them up to PS quality so people have something to go on. Ekr: I'm not familiar with how much ["interest" or "deployment", muffled] if there's a lot them presumably we can do something. What I'm trying to avoid is an enormous amount of back and forth on these security properties for something that doesn't have a lot of deployment. Deborah: I think it's really important we get these cleaned up. Why should people use an experimental protocol? I think we should do our best and get these on the PS track. Ted: I think the point is you and Ekr are having a fundamental disagreement about what it means to bring it up to PS quality. Ekr's point, and one I personally agree with, is that to bring it up to PS quality in 2019 actually means to bring up the security properties to something that actually is deployable appropriately in whatever environment is being described. If there's a fundamental disagreement on what that is, then there's a reality check about whether the WG can bring it up to PS quality in the way the IETF currently sees that. Deborah: I think right now we're getting really close. Let's just see if we can hammer it out, and if it takes another sentence to say they should not be using long term keys we can put that there. It's really important to scope these so people understand when they read it why they shouldn't be using them. I think we're really close so let's just see if we can get there and if we can't let's figure out something else to do with these documents. I think it's wrong to have them hanging out as experimental. Ekr: I'm certainly happy to spend more time on this. I'm perhaps less sanguine that we're really close on this. Deborah: Okay. Thank you, everybody. Definitely this also stays as IESG Evaluation, Revised ID Needed. 2.2 Individual submissions 2.2.1 New items NONE 2.2.2 Returning items NONE 2.3 Status changes 2.3.1 New items NONE 2.3.2 Returning items NONE 3. Document actions 3.1 WG submissions 3.1.1 New items o draft-ietf-rmcat-video-traffic-model-06 - IETF stream Video Traffic Models for RTP Congestion Control Evaluations (Informational) Token: Mirja Kuehlewind Amy: I have no Discusses in the tracker, so unless there's an objection now it looks like this one is approved. Hearing no objection. Are there any notes needed for this version? Mirja: Please put it in Point Raised. There are a couple of comments that need either a note or a new version but I don't know yet. 3.1.2 Returning items NONE 3.2 Individual submissions via AD 3.2.1 New items o draft-gutmann-scep-13 - IETF stream Simple Certificate Enrolment Protocol (Informational) Token: Alexey Melnikov Amy: There are a few Discusses in the tracker; do we need to discuss any of those today? Alexey: I think this needs to be discussed on the mailing list. It will definitely need a new revision. If people think we need to discuss anything, let me know. Adam: The one thing I wanted to bring up because it requires IESG approval is that this document talks about a handful of out in the field, been used for a long time media types that are unregistered and they are application/x-. The registry allows them to go in for legacy uses like this but we do need IESG signoff. I just wanted to check if anyone would object to approving four or five mime types in here under the application tree. Alexey: I think I made the same argument and I wanted to register them but I got pushback from the editor. Maybe he's changed his mind. Adam: Well regardless of what the editor wants to do, registering anything that is application/x- requires IESG signoff. That's why I wanted to make certain it was explicitly raised on the call. Alexey: I would be happy to do that. Adam: Thanks. Alexey: The document is slightly worse because it's using x- version of media types which are already registered as well. I think there's one of them. I asked why it's not using the already registered one. Mirja: I have a quick question on the status, because I didn't see the discussion on a mailing list. My understanding was that this was proposed as a Proposed Standard and now it's Informational. Was it ever discussed to publish this as Historic? Benjamin: My recollection is that it was, but I do not have a link I can point to to support that. Alexey: I think it was. Mirja: Because I think historic is the right status for this document. Otherwise it should be explained clearly in the abstract and introduction that this is not meant for deployment or for endorsement, only for documentation purposes. I think historic would be right. Benjamin: Again, my unsubstantiated recollection is that there was a claim there were ongoing and existing new deployments where they are continuing to use this. Mirja: I see. But from your discuss it sounds like we've been expecting the next version of this document. Alexey: Yes. Mirja: I'll wait for that. Alexey: Thank you. Alissa: Just one note on my comment. I think there's a difference between putting some text up front in the introduction, and I understand the author says this has been done many times and taken in and put out, and the question of whether the standard boilerplate actually applies here. The standard boilerplate will say this is the product of the IETF and represents the consensus of the IETF community. To me, if the consensus is that we wanted this to be published but we didn't want people to design their protocols this way, that's kind of different from what the standard boilerplate would say. So I think there are 2 questions, one is if this document should say something up front about the general unfitness of some of the design decisions, and the other question is about the representation of the consensus. Ekr: I'm somewhat enthusiastic about removing the boilerplate. My complaining in the discusses is about statements that cut against other IETF consensus statements. Alexey: So is your suggestion to move this to no consensus boilerplate and possibly add more text explaining why? Alissa: Yes. That's basically what I put in my comment. Adam: That sounds good to me as well. Alexey: I'm happy with that. Can you suggest some specific text? That would be very helpful. Alissa: Yeah. It's almost there in my ballot, but I can write it up. Alexey: Then at least I can hammer on it a little. Okay, I think this will need a new revision. Amy: Okay, this will stay in IESG evaluation with Revised ID Needed. o draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-06 - IETF stream The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme (Informational) Token: Alexey Melnikov Amy: I have a Discuss in the tracker. Do we need to discuss that today? Alexey: I don't think so. I think the last response from Alissa is very sensible and we'll see how the editors reply to this. Just a general comment in regards to documents that have URI registration; I actually started a discussion with Adrian about getting some kind of agreement to publish URI registrations which are not necessarily IETF consensus in ISE stream and I think we have some kind of agreement with him. So this will never happen again, hopefully. Amy: Is it going to require a Revised ID? Alexey: Yes, thank you. 3.2.2 Returning items NONE 3.3 Status changes 3.3.1 New items NONE 3.3.2 Returning items NONE 3.4 IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents 3.4.1 New items NONE 3.4.2 Returning items NONE 4. Working Group actions 4.1 WG creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF review o Remote ATtestation ProcedureS (rats) Amy: I have a block on this. Do we need to discuss that today? Benjamin: I don't think we really need to discuss that today. There seemed to be some good comments and I apologize for not participating on the email discussion yet; I was pretty busy wrapping up my comments on the other documents on this telechat. I think we can work on these comments over email. From a procedural point of view, if we do make a change to the text that resolves the block, then we can have the Secretariat send it to external review without having it back on the telechat? Is that right? Amy: That is correct. We can say we are waiting for instructions from you; basically the pending edits state. We will wait to hear from you and we'll move on. Thank you. 4.1.2 Proposed for approval o GitHub Integration and Tooling (git) Amy: I have no blocks for this charter, so unless there's an objection now it looks like this WG has been approved for action. Alissa: Thank you. 4.2 WG rechartering 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF review o Multiparty Multimedia Session Control (mmusic) Amy: I have no blocking comments. Unless there's an objection now it looks like it might be ready to just make the changes in the charter. Or does anyone feel like it has to go for external review? Ekr: I just object to the change, but I guess I'm willing to admit I'm in the rough. Ben: If I understand, your objection is that MMUSIC doesn't have the right expertise to work on this but in reality, the people who were in ICE tend to also go to MMUSIC. Ekr: This has nothing to do with SDP. Ben: Well, it has historical roots in MMUSIC. For the most part we don't know if there's going to be any actual work associated with this anyway. Ekr: Then let's not do it at all. Mirja: Why don't we keep the ICE group around for a while longer? Ben: Because there's no energy to keep the group open and the chairs want to stop. Ekr: My point would be, let us not do this and if somebody says they want to work on ICE we can return to it at that time, or start a new ICE working group. Benjamin: You mean close ICE now, and not change MMUSIC? Ekr: Yes. Ben: This was discussed in MMUSIC and the WG wanted to do this. Obviously if we don't think they should, that's a different thing entirely. But the way this is worded, this is maintenance. If there's anything substantial that comes forward, that would need to be addressed separately anyway. The kinds of things that would show up here would be trivial things not worth opening up a WG for. Mirja: In Transport we have the Transport WG where anything that doesn't fit anywhere else or belongs to a closed WG just goes there automatically without rechartering. Ben: We expressly don't have a catchall work group in ART. Magnus: I would disagree about the TSV WG, I don't think the charter is fully open for anything, but it's definitely the place to start the discussion for anything which doesn't have another home. Ben: I'm sorry Magnus, I didn't hear which WG you mentioned? Magnus: The Transport WG. In this matter I think either rechartering or not is probably fine. In some degree I think it equally belongs to Transport and ICE depending on what that chartering item becomes, so there is actually a point to wait for chartering until we know. Mirja: I don't have a strong opinion here but I also thought TRAM could be another candidate, a WG that probably will be closed soon. Ben: And I think those things would all make sense if we were talking about a significant change or update to ICE instead of just maintenance. Mirja: But then maybe the proposal Ekr did is better; don't change the charter and wait until we get something. Ben: Is anyone willing to put in a block over that? Because the WG did discuss this and was interested in doing this. Ekr: My position was that I didn't think it was helpful for me to stand in the middle of the road if everyone else disagreed with me; if people in fact agree with me and there's a formal need for me to file an objection I'm happy to do so, but I don't want to be a jerk for no reason. Ben: Let me characterize the discussion; there was some discussion about whether it was required to put anything in here at all. The MMUSIC WG discussed this in Canada and wanted to put it in. I'm perfectly happy to go back to the WG and say maybe we don't need to do this, but that's already been discussed. If we as the IESG think we should say no you can't do this, that's fine. It's not a huge deal and I don't think makes any difference. It's just a matter of, are you sure about this? They've already discussed this. Mirja: Knowing now they don't have a concrete action item they want to work on, I'm slightly tending towards not adding it to the charter at this point in time. But I don't think it's a big deal so I wouldn't want to block it, I leave that to your decision. I'm a little bit worried that putting it in without knowing what will come up in the future opens up a discussion when something comes up that shouldn't be in MMUSIC. Ben: Why don't we keep this in whatever the equivalent is of Point Raised and I'm going to have a discussion with the MMUSIC chairs one more round and see what we come up with. Amy: We'll just wait for instructions from you, Ben. 4.2.2 Proposed for approval NONE 5. IAB news we can use Deborah: I don't think there's any news this week. They're still busy discussing plenary planning. Ted: A couple of things I would add to that. It doesn't look like the IAB will be able to co-locate with the IESG for our retreats. The first round of discussion of whether or not the week you've picked will work yielded two people who have probable conflicts for that week. We're going to run a Doodle to see if there's another week that will be better. Alissa: I'm sure the IAB will figure it out in short order but if this means people would like to select the IAB liaison for next year before IETF 104 so you can plan travel, we can do that. If anyone wants to do it you can speak up. Barry: I think that's a good idea, rather than being dumped into an already-planned retreat. Deborah: I'd encourage anybody to be liaison, it's very interesting, and worthwhile to be at the retreat. You should consider it if you're interested. Warren: How much time other than the travel did it end up taking? Deborah: It's just a matter of being on their calls, so usually there's a call about once every two weeks for an hour or hour and a half. You're not mandated to be on the call. Barry: I'd be interested in putting my name in for IAB liaison. Warren: Sounds like it might be interesting. I guess we should figure out how we do this offline. Alissa: Amy, can you give me an action item to schedule a discussion of this on a future telechat? Amy: Certainly. 6. Management issues 6.1 Request to add ITU-T to the Standards-related organizations that have registered Media Types in the Standards Tree registry (IANA) Amy: I know they asked on email if there were any objections and I didn't see any. Michelle, where are we with that? Michelle: I think I saw Barry say this was a no-brainer and I didn't see any other comments. Barry: You are not wrong. Michelle: Just a double check to see if there are any objections. Amy: I don't hear any objection. We'll send the official note to IANA. 6.2 [IANA #1133923] renewing early allocations for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates (IANA) Amy: It looks like this is a second renewal. Michelle: The additional renewal after the first one requires IESG approval. We're just bringing it to you to approve renewal for another year and hopefully the document will eventually make its way to officially register these. Looks like you get to send another message, Amy. Amy: Okay, looks like this is approved. 6.3 IETF LLC appointment by the IESG (Ted Hardie) Ted: The IESG has appointed Alissa Cooper, the IETF Chair, to be its appointee to the LLC board. Alissa: Ted, will you send a note to the IETF list? Ted: Yes, I can do that. 6.4 Possible Telechat Schedule Between IETF 104 and IETF 105 (Secretariat) Amy: We looked at our calendar and there is really only one schedule that works. Any objection to this? Alissa: I don't have an objection but I have two questions. Sometimes we find another day on the July 4 week to meet. This time it's an informal so maybe it doesn't matter. The other question is that we haven't moved the time of this call in many years but we have new ADs joining, so if the time of the call doesn't work for somebody we can have that conversation as well. Mirja: I just want to note there are two German holidays here; May 30 and June 20. Amy: We will get those in the calendar. 6.5 Designated expert for mikey-payloads (Eric Rescorla) Amy: Ekr, you added this to see if anyone has an objection to approving Daniel Migault as expert. Any objection? Hearing no objection so it looks like Daniel is approved. 7. Any Other Business (WG News, New Proposals, etc.) Alissa: I have a couple of questions about things on the BOF wiki. I'm assuming things on the spherical router and the SMART proposed RG are not items that we're expected to review and discuss, is that right? Amy: Allison indicated she wanted to discuss the proposed RG. Alissa: That's fine. I thought it was a scheduling placeholder. Mirja: I talked to the potential future chairs of this and they tried to figure out a way to get a place on the agenda because if they don't have a Datatracker page they can't request a slot on the agenda, but I don't know what Allison's reasons are here. Amy: Ace, you were going to say something about the spherical router? Warren: That was largely put on there mostly as a placeholder but we'll probably just like to try to convince people to try to champion it. Another thing we can discuss is the KSK Futures one but I chatted with Paul Hoffman who suggested we put it on here just for visibility. IT's not a WG-forming thing but I do think it should get some time. Anyway, that's for next week. Spencer: I have an NSFv4 document in last call that's a 100 page update to the 600 page NFSv4 RFC. This will conclude before IETF 104 and I'll try to get this through so Magnus doesn't have it on his first telechat. If people would like to take a look early it's out there and I want to let people know it's coming. I'm hoping we'll have space on a telechat before 104 to do that. Ben: We may end up with some competition; I've got two I just put into last call so there's a good chance we may overflow the page count. Mirja: I think the last telechat before the meeting is an informal so if we really need more time and space maybe we can use that telechat as well. Amy: The last telechat before 104 is an informal and we can change that to a formal if you feel you need it; just let us know.