IETF 69, Chicago Wednesday, 25 July 2007 IAOC/IESG Plenary Minutes Edited from notes by Mirjam Kuehne AGENDA 1. Welcome by IETF Chair Russ Housley 2. NOC Report (Morgan Nockett, VeriLAN) 3. Host presentation (Ken Zdunek, Motorola) 4. IETF Chair and IAD Reports 5. NomCom Chair (Lakshminath Dondeti) 6. IAOC Q&A 7. IESG Q&A NOC REPORT Please see the slides presented by Morgan Nockett, VeriLAN. HOST PRESENTATION Please see the slides presented by Ken Zdunek, VP Networks Research, Motorola. IETF CHAIR AND IAD REPORTS Please see the slides presented by Russ Housley, IETF Chair. One point deserves highlighting: The meeting fees for IETF 70 must be increased. If a host is not found, then the meeting fees must be increased significantly. NOMCOM CHAIR Please see the slides presented by Lakshminath Dondeti, Qualcomm. IAOC Q&A (with IAOC on stage) Please see the slides presented by Kurtis Lindqvist, IAOC Chair. Brian Carpenter: We already applauded the Tools Team for rewriting the tools to repair security flaws. This was a fantatstic job! We should applaude them again! Another issue: At the last IETF meeting, the IETF trust produced a license for people to sign over their RFCs to the Trust. Disappointed that not more people have signed it. I encourage people to do that. Ray Pelletier: The licenses are online. (See http://trustee.ietf.org/authorlic.html) Paul Hofmann: Referring to the tools updates again, in the 'eating your own dog food' category: if you go to datatracker, there are now Atom feeds for all drafts. That is good. IESG Q&A (with the IESG on stage) Dave Nelson: Related to protocol RFCs: What is the formal procedure for interpretation requests? If there are questions after the specification and the RFC is done, where could they be raised? Russ: I'm not aware of a formal process. This is a good point. In some cases the working group mail list doesn't exist anymore. In other cases the whole Area does not exist anymore. Alain Durand: Question about the IPv6 WG. Recently the WG Chairs have started to work on a contentious issue (ULA). The WG has not been meeting, despite many request to arrange a meeting. Jari Arkko: I agree that the ULA issue should have been discussed face to face. Unfortunatly this started after the room request deadline had passed. I Suggest a conference call and discussion on the mail list. I have asked the WG Chairs to close the current WG and open a new one to work on maintenance issues like RH0. Alain: What will the charter be: just maintenance or also new issues like transition and v4-v6 NAT? Jari: Initially maintenance, but new issues, including transition issues will also need to be addressed. Alain: I would like to see a broader scope. Maybe multiple WGs are needed. Russ: Referenced a meeting the IAB and IESG had on Sunday prior to the IETF meeting to talk about IPv6 transition issues and what the IETF can do to support it. There were varying opinions, a lively discussion, and ultimately no concensus on what the IETF can do right now. Bob Hinden: Agrees with Alain on the transition issues. In the past we believed that transition can happen before we run out of IPv4. This does not seem to be the case. Therefore we need to revisit that topic. Tony Hain: Transition mechanisms were not successful because the network is so complex. Some of them were taken off the table because they have significant operational implications. This affects all IETF Areas. Margaret Wasserman: Thinks it is important that protocol work is done in a chartered protocol WG. IPv6ops was overloaded with various issues, both operational and protocol. We should not constrain ourselves. NAT-PT might have to be revisited. NAT will happen and should be well integrated. Phil Hallam-Baker: When work comes to the IETF, there is often already a deployment constituency. IPv6 is different; it has been developed inside the IETF with the assumption that the world needs it. Most of the world doesn't think like we do. We need to think about how to sell transition to IPv6. We already ran out of IPv4 addresses. We have to come up with a way of sharing the IPv4 address pool. Brian: I published a draft on RFC2026 changes (process RFC). He has received three comments that actually addressed the document. Is there an interest on working on this topic this year? Russ: It seems to be difficult for people to understand which things can be easily changed and what will require significant community commitment to change. Brian: Yes. Brian is considering an appendix to clarifying this. However, he would first like to know if there is actually interest. Almost all suggested changes are in the category of aligning the formal process with what we actually already do today. Thus, they do not change the principles. Spencer Dawkins: Likes the idea of documenting what we actually do. Sam Hartman: The IETF is a complex organization with many levels of process procedures. It is getting to a point where it is difficult to document the entire organization in a few process documents. Spencer: Suggests that if we observe something in a process document that we don't do anymore we just make a note of that and move on. He has learned to appreciate the flexibility that the current documents permit. But, it would be fair to new people who come to the IETF to describe what we do. It is more 'process documentation correction' than process change. Phil Hallam-Baker: Many protocols will never be finished; there is always ongoing maintenance and refinement. He likes to think of an ongoing standards process instead of the 3-stage process. Margaret: Would like to see RFC2026 updated. Joel Halpern: Read Brian's draft. Joel agrees that we need to work on updates to RFC 2026. He also believes we need to document what we do. This is not only important for newcomers, it is important for all of us. Scott Bradner: Not many people attended the IPR WG. That might be part of the problem. Lack of interest? John Klensin: Look at the history of newtrack. If we start revising major specifications, we must make sure the results are what community wants. Russ: I completely agree. |