Leslie Daigle, chair of the IAB, opened the technical plenary session.
Aaron Falk, the chairman of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) gave
an update of the work of the IRTF:
As reported at the last IETF, the IRTF is reaching out to the research
community. In order to attract more researchers to actively work in the
IRTF, Aaron published an article in the ACM Computer Communication
In the meantime two new Research Groups have been set up: one on
Transport Modeling (TMRG) and one to work on Internet Congestion
Control (ICCRG). In addition to that there are currently ten Research
Groups active in the IRTF. In the future there might be new work on
The Routing RG had a meeting with the IAB to review the status of the
research. Aaron has also been working with the IETF attorney to find out
if the IETF IPR policy could be applied to the IRTF.
Finally, the IRTF started to use the Friday afternoon slots for RG
meetings. At this IETF the Host Identify Protocol Research Group (hiprg)
The next presenter was David McGrew who gave a report on recent findings
of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG). The following discussion on
specific cryptography mechanisms concluded in a suggestion for people
active in the security area to publish a document with recommendations
for specific mechanisms.
Leslie Daigle provided an expanded update at IETF64. Taking the
opportunity of the NomCom cycle (looking for next year's IAB members)
she provided an overview of the IAB's documented responsibilities and
used that to give context to reported IAB activities:
The IAB is planning to hold a workshop on "Network Architecture meets
Network Reality" in the first quarter of 2006.
The IDN ad-hoc committee has concluded. The IPv6 ad-hoc committee will
continue its work. In addition to that the IAB has established a
committee to work with ISOC on technical communications and publications.
The IAB has recently published a number of documents:
"Internet Denial of Service Considerations"
"What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names"
"IAOC Member Selection Guidelines and Process"
IAB Town Hall Session
During the open Town Hall session following the technical presentations,
a number of issues were raised and recommendations made to the IAB.
During this IETF week, IAB members took an active role in BoF meetings.
In fact all BoF meetings are attended by at least one IAB member. It is
been suggested though that the IAB would be even more actively involved
in the formation on BoFs to get an early architectural review of new
work brought into the IETF.
Overall the community appreciates the IAB taking a more active role in
the early stages of BoF and WG meetings. Also the IAB documents are seen
to be useful.
A suggestion was made to create clearer guidelines for the formation of
BoF meetings. Often people who are bringing new work into the IETF,
might think they have to shape the BoF or WG all by themselves whereas
in fact, it is a community issue. It is important to understand the
architecture and the big picture early on in the process. It was felt
that a closer partnership between the IESG, the IAB and the BoF
organisers is needed.
This was followed by a discussion on increased complexity in the
transport layer and the risk to loose interoperability of various
protocols (also see discussion at IETF63, in the first edition of the
IETF Journal, http://ietfjournal.isoc.org/IETFJournal0101.pdf).
Some people felt however that this is an integral part of the IETF: "We
don't do systems, we do pieces. We never say that all this works on the
same box," Bob Hinden said. This has to be considered carefully when
implementing. "If we want to change this, this would fundamentally
change the work of the IETF," Bob Hinden added and suggested to document
this clearly (possibly an IAB document?).
Pekka Nikander, a member of the IAB believes that in this context the
Identifier/locator split is the right approach. "If we want to have
mobility and multi-homing at the same time, we need a new layer of
indirection." Pekka said. He suggests to continue this disucssion on the
new mailing list.
The last topic brought up during this plenary session was related to the
work and charter of the crisp WG and the question if crisp can also be
applied to Routing Registries. Leslie pointed out that crisp is focused
on domain and address, but not on routing registries. Kurtis Lindqvist
adds that "there is a fundamental difference between an address object
and routing objects." The Regional Internet Registries are actually
working on a certificate mechanism to address the issue of route
In that context one should not forget that the routing topology looks
different in different parts of the world: "In the JP ISP community
hierarchical route mgmt is an accepted concept." George Michaelson,
co-chair of the crisp WG, points out. But globally this is not the case.
In closing Alex Zinin, one of the Routing Area Directors reminds people
not to confuse hierarchy of routing and hierarchy in address allocation:
"For routing, hierarchy is not needed, aggregation is what is
important. As far as address allocation, the address space has to be
managed." Alex said.
All presentations given during the IETF 64 plenary session can be found