2. Review of Documents
3. Liaison Reports
As a followup on the issues of IESG process raised at the previous IESG plenary, it was reported that the IESG is discussing organizational and process options. It was anticipated that views from the IAB will be sought at a later stage within this process.
RFC EDITOR
The RFC Editor has reported on the state of the RFC Editor queue, describing the status of the documents in the queue, to the chair of the IETF and the IAB.
IRTF
Vern Paxson provided the IAB with an update on IRTF activities.
The Name Space Research Group has submitted a document outlining the perspectives of some of the group members for RFC publication as an individual submission.
The IAB discussed with the IRTF chair the potential for some form of periodic IAB review of research group status reports. It was envisaged that such a process would allow for clearer understanding of current IRTF activities, more informed assessment of proposals for new research groups and better understanding of the potential to fold research group outputs into current IETF activities. Vern Paxson will circulate a proposal for IAB consideration along these lines.
The IAB discussed a proposal to form a simulation research group, noting the potential for simulation to support IETF protocol development, and noting that simulation is widely used as a research tool to assist in understanding the dynamics of protocol behaviour under certain conditions. There is also some interest in the potential use of simulation techniques as part of a more formal validation process for standards-track protocols. It was suggested that this proposal could be further refined and then presented as a BOF at the Atlanta IETF.
ISOC
Lynn St.Amour was not available to present a liaison report. Fred
Baker (current ISOC BoT chair) said he had nothing to report.
ITU-T
Considered under Item 4.
W3C
Nothing to report.
PSO-PC and ICANN
The PSO PC members reported on the outcomes of the PSO PC meeting of the 24th July. The ISO application for PSO membership was not accepted by the PSO PC. The IETF representatives opposed this application on the grounds that the ICANN Board in July 2002 adopted a resolution which includes the winding up of the PSO, as per the IAB's advice.
The period for nominations for a PSO-nominated ICANN Board member position closed without any nominations being received. The PSO PC, by majority vote, determined to extend the nomination period until the 15th August.
The IAB reiterated its recommendation that the IETF members of the PSO-PC cast votes on PSO decisions in such a manner that the PSO refrain from making any binding decisions in this interim period until the formal dissolution of the PSO.
While the IAB is not in a position to make absolute undertakings in this respect, the IAB was happy to provide assurance that the current arrangements were not considered to be interim in any way, and that any change in delegation of a technical operator would be undertaken with due consideration of the interests of all interested stakeholders and with appropriate consultation.
The IAB noted that a Nomcom liaison should be selected by early September.
It was noted that these documents are intended for different audiences and while they are relevant to consideration of the architecture of the Internet, they do not undertake the same function as RFC1958 in terms of an architectural specification.
The IAB concluded that it would be productive to close off the architectural changes activity, and refocus activity on a revision of the implications of the end-to-end principle in relation to Internet architecture.
There is insufficient interest to undertake a interoperability workshop in the latter half of 2002. A proposal for an IPv6 deployment security workshop was discussed by the IAB, looking at the issues involved with various IPv6-related mechanisms and their security implications. A proposal will be generated that describes this in further detail.
The IAB reviewed the recent discussion of technical and administrative contacts for the .arpa domain, and where there is overlap with the of the IETF IANA function, will ensure that the proposed task description is consistent with RFC3172.
These minutes were prepared by Geoff Huston; comments should be sent to iab-execd@iab.org. An online copy of these and other minutes is available at: ftp://ftp.iab.org/in-notes/IAB/IABmins/
IAB Web page is at http://www.iab.org
Subject: [Re: RSSAC Attendees]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:53:40 -0700
From: Louis Touton
To: Leslie Daigle
CC: Jun Murai, John Crain
As I believe John mentioned to Harald, the Root Server System Advisory
Committee would like very much to have renewed IESG/IAB participation in
the RSSAC's work. (Please excuse the delay in getting this formal
invitation to you; I'll accept the blame as ICANN secretary for not
seeing that the invitation went out sooner.)
Although most of the participants in the RSSAC (such as root-nameserver
operators and RIR personnel) are involved in one way or another in IETF
work, they participate in the RSSAC from their own, non-IETF
perspectives. In its early stages, the RSSAC had designated IETF
representatives, but this practice fell dormant. At its meeting in
Yokohama, the RSSAC discussed the desirability of renewed IESG/IAB
participation on the committee, and the members broadly supported the
desirability of greater IESG/IAB participation.
The RSSAC recognizes that IESG/IAB rely on volunteer resources, which
are necessarily of limited quantity. Nonetheless, the RSSAC believes
that it would be very helpful to have designated IESG/IAB participation
in the RSSAC for the following reasons:
1. IESG/IAB participation will provide a valuable information
channel/liaison between the IESG/IAB and ICANN. This should improve the
information flow in both directions. For example, the RSSAC members
feel they would benefit from an IETF "management" perspective of the
technical community's needs and expectations from the root-nameserver
system. Conversely, the RSSAC members feel that the IETF's work in
developing technical standards and advice could benefit from a more
detailed understanding of the operational circumstances faced by those
involved in operating the system.
2. The IETF (and particularly IESG/IAB) has a great deal of
DNS-related expertise that is not reflected on the RSSAC. It is
important that the perspectives of the "users" (their needs, etc.), and
not just those of the operators, be taken into account in the RSSAC's
work.
3. The RSSAC is chartered to provide the ICANN Board with technical
advice specifically about the root-nameserver system. Because the IESG
and IAB play an important role in advising the ICANN Board on the
technical implications of its actions more generally, close consultation
between the RSSAC and IESG/IAB can assist in ensuring that the advice of
the two bodies is given to the ICANN Board from a consistent knowledge
base.
4. Having a designated "official" liaison will help reduce
misunderstandings between the RSSAC and IETF/IAB about each others'
intentions/activities.
The RSSAC would greatly appreciate the IESG and IAB designating
representatives to participate in the RSSAC's work. As to time
commitments, the RSSAC ordinarily meets once at the venue of each IETF
meeting, usually on the Sunday before the meeting. The RSSAC maintains
a mailing list at which committee business is discussed. The RSSAC also
prepares various reports and advisory documents to ICANN; these are
ordinarily done by working subgroups of the RSSAC. The assistance of
IESG/IAB representatives in these working groups would be welcome, but
is not necessary. What the RSSAC would value most is participation in
its meetings plus the opportunity to consult with designated IESG/IAB
representatives as specific matters of common interest may arise between
meetings.
On behalf of the RSSAC, I hope that the IESG and IAB will be able to
find the resources to designate representatives to participate in the
RSSAC.
Best regards,
Louis