IETF
ianaplan
ianaplan@jabber.ietf.org
Thursday, July 24, 2014< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[02:04:35] metricamerica joins the room
[02:24:57] metricamerica leaves the room
[12:43:36] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[12:43:45] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[12:44:03] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[12:49:36] Suzanne Woolf joins the room
[12:51:48] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[12:53:01] cmorgan joins the room
[12:55:35] Barry Leiba joins the room
[12:56:08] bortzmeyer joins the room
[12:56:30] fdupont joins the room
[12:56:38] B_Smith joins the room
[12:57:12] Eric Burger joins the room
[12:57:16] Meetecho RAV joins the room
[12:58:02] Andrew Sullivan_1908 joins the room
[12:58:09] John Leslie joins the room
[12:58:19] Geoff Huston joins the room
[12:59:00] Hugo Salgado joins the room
[12:59:04] cmorgan leaves the room
[12:59:42] Scott Brim joins the room
[13:00:06] <Lorenzo Miniero> hi everybody, just FYI, we have a Meetecho room available for this session: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf90/ianaplan
[13:00:12] Eric Burger61947 joins the room
[13:00:12] Eric Burger61947 leaves the room
[13:00:12] Eric Burger57208 joins the room
[13:00:21] avri doria joins the room
[13:00:28] <Eric Burger57208> Who is Jabber scribe?
[13:00:33] <Lorenzo Miniero> FYI again, the list of remote participants is being displayed on a second screen in the room
[13:00:34] Scott Brim waves
[13:00:39] <Eric Burger57208> cool.
[13:00:45] <Eric Burger57208> Hi Scott!
[13:00:47] <Lorenzo Miniero> yep :)
[13:01:10] <Eric Burger57208> BTW, it’s 9am. Kick the chairs 😈
[13:01:22] Cindy Morgan joins the room
[13:01:33] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 2: Agenda
[13:01:42] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 3: Admin
[13:01:57] yone joins the room
[13:02:07] Dave Thaler joins the room
[13:02:07] <Eric Burger57208> Thanks Ted!!!
[13:02:15] weiler joins the room
[13:02:15] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[13:02:18] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[13:02:29] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 2: Agenda
[13:02:34] <Dave Thaler> FYI, this is an IAB session not a "BOF"
[13:03:03] Lynn St Amour joins the room
[13:03:18] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 5: History from IETF89 IGOVUPDATE
[13:03:19] Ted.H joins the room
[13:03:27] <Andrew Sullivan> No, this is a BOF
[13:03:39] <Ted.H> If you would like your comment relayed to the mic, please preface it with MIC:  
[13:03:40] <Ted.H> Thanks!
[13:03:41] <Andrew Sullivan> This is a BOF in the general area.  The last one was an IAB session
[13:03:42] <Dave Thaler> ok
[13:03:45] weiler leaves the room
[13:03:49] <Eric Burger57208> Last I saw, there was a charter discussion. That makes this a BOF.
[13:03:51] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[13:04:07] <Scott Brim> where are the slides?
[13:04:07] resnick joins the room
[13:04:11] bortzmeyer leaves the room
[13:04:12] <Dave Thaler> yes sry
[13:04:16] <Eric Burger57208> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/90/materials.html#ianaplan
[13:04:19] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 6: History from IETF89 IGOVUPDATE
[13:04:29] bortzmeyer joins the room
[13:04:33] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 7: History from IETF89 IGOVUPDATE
[13:04:34] Edward Lewis joins the room
[13:04:37] Joe Hall joins the room
[13:04:39] <Eric Burger57208> Don’t forget MeetEcho: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf90/ianaplan
[13:04:54] <Dave Thaler> *igovupdate* was the IAB non-bof
[13:04:56] <Lorenzo Miniero> Scott the slides are on the materials page
[13:05:04] <Scott Brim> (can't - meetechoing SDNRG)
[13:05:06] <resnick> What a thoughtful face.
[13:05:07] <Lorenzo Miniero> but joining Meetecho we display them together with audio/video
[13:05:17] <resnick> What a non-useful feature.
[13:05:18] Alexa  Morris joins the room
[13:05:20] <Lorenzo Miniero> Presentation is over
[13:05:22] Eliot Lear joins the room
[13:05:44] <Lorenzo Miniero> resnick :)
[13:05:45] <Eric Burger57208> You can silence the Meetecho audio. Hit the sonic icon on the upper left of the screen and hit the silence button.
[13:05:56] <Eric Burger57208> & Pete — I love your icon ;-)
[13:06:11] <Dave Thaler> Alissa's slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx
[13:06:12] <Andrew Sullivan> Alissa is ok on remote audio?
[13:06:23] <Eric Burger57208> yes [Alissa]. thanks
[13:06:25] latourjacques joins the room
[13:06:27] <Lorenzo Miniero> I'm monitoring it and she sounds fine
[13:06:32] spamvictim joins the room
[13:06:33] <Andrew Sullivan> tyvm
[13:07:23] Brian Trammell joins the room
[13:07:35] hildjj joins the room
[13:08:15] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 3: Brief and recent history (2/2)
[13:08:15] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 4: NTIA’s transition plan criteria
[13:08:31] Tomohiro Fujisaki joins the room
[13:09:02] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 5: ICANN facilitation
[13:09:18] Klensin joins the room
[13:10:16] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 6: IANA Stewardship Transition
[13:10:55] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 7: Draft ICG charter (1/2)
[13:14:13] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 8: Draft ICG charter (2/2)
[13:14:30] Barbara Roseman joins the room
[13:14:40] liman joins the room
[13:15:52] ed lewis joins the room
[13:15:55] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 9: Draftier request to communities (1/2)
[13:16:17] B Roseman joins the room
[13:16:18] Edward Lewis leaves the room
[13:16:19] st.amour@jabber.org joins the room
[13:18:50] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 10: Draftier request to communities (2/2)
[13:19:03] Geoff Huston leaves the room
[13:19:14] <resnick> Where is the draft charter?
[13:19:18] Ray Pelletier joins the room
[13:19:22] <Eric Burger57208> Was on the mail list. looking…
[13:19:57] resnick is amused by the presumption that everyone would subject themselves to the list. :-)
[13:20:10] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 11: Even draftier timeline
[13:20:40] <Cindy Morgan> Draft charter thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/threads.html#00024
[13:20:47] <Eric Burger57208> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00024.html
[13:21:02] <Eric Burger57208> Cindy just beat me!
[13:21:10] <Cindy Morgan> :)
[13:21:51] <Brian Carpenter> no, the latest draft is http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00040.html
[13:22:08] <Eric Burger57208> I figured it would be worth it for Pete to see the discussion.
[13:22:15] <Eric Burger57208> hence the thread link
[13:22:28] <Andrew Sullivan> I did sent the update in the thread, I think.
[13:22:43] Barbara Roseman leaves the room
[13:22:44] Geoff Huston joins the room
[13:22:47] <Andrew Sullivan> If not, you may throw the tomatoes you reserved from Monday night
[13:23:46] <Samuel Weiler> This seems to allow for one round of "create/test".  Are we really that optimistic?
[13:23:57] <Eric Burger57208> Sam - for Mic?
[13:24:07] <Samuel Weiler> no.  If it is, I'll stand up.
[13:24:16] <Eric Burger57208> 😎
[13:24:26] <Eric Burger57208> It’s worth asking.
[13:24:27] <Samuel Weiler> more for background chatter.
[13:24:30] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 12: Next steps
[13:24:40] <Eric Burger57208> I could ask, but I’m remote this morning.
[13:24:47] <Eric Burger57208> Better since you can do it interactively.
[13:24:49] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 13: References
[13:24:50] <avri doria> what is the deadline for charter comments?
[13:24:53] <Brian Carpenter> hopefully the ietf proposal will be ain't broken don't fix, so no trial needed
[13:25:16] <Samuel Weiler> so Brian is that optimistic?
[13:25:22] <Eric Burger57208> I agree w/ Brian, BUT, we may be looking at thinking about what others want, too.
[13:25:35] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 12: Next steps
[13:25:36] <Brian Carpenter> @avri: you mean WG charter? that would be a call on the ietf list
[13:25:49] <avri doria> no I mean the IGC charter
[13:25:56] <avri doria> icg
[13:26:57] wseltzer joins the room
[13:27:20] <Andrew Sullivan> @avri: is yours the question Olaf is asking, or do you want an explicit deadline?
[13:27:52] <avri doria> sort of.  though it would be good to know a deadline for comments on the charter
[13:28:02] <Andrew Sullivan> sounds like next Friday
[13:28:08] <avri doria> got it.  thanks
[13:28:25] <Eric Burger57208> @Sam: I’m thinking that Brian is right about the IETF position. We really should let Allison, Jari, Lynn, and Russ know that the test part may be ambitious for some of the other communities so they can take it to the ICG.
[13:28:37] <Joe Hall> @avri: a bit hard to tell when and how to comment…e.g.: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-16-en
[13:29:23] <Samuel Weiler> s/Allison/Alissa/?
[13:29:39] <Eric Burger57208> My early morning typo. Yes, Alissa.
[13:29:52] <Eric Burger57208> i.e., the IAB and IETF members of the ICG
[13:30:25] <avri doria> there are multiple lists discussing this.  i am assuk ign that senidn a comment to ianatransiton@icann.org probably work.  but good to know for sure.
[13:31:04] <Andrew Sullivan> Well, in this community, if you send comments on either the Internetgovtech or ianaplan lists, the appointees will see it.
[13:31:11] <Andrew Sullivan> s/it/them
[13:31:27] alessandro amirante joins the room
[13:31:31] <Eric Burger57208> Affirmative. That’s a hint to anyone who wants to step up.
[13:31:55] <Eric Burger57208> Jari - who are you?
[13:32:01] <Geoff Huston> This is a complex and detailed proposal, involving many steps, and aspects of community involvement and a 14 month program. it is certainly the case that this sends a conflicting and confusing message. If indeed it really was the case that the NTIA’s involvement in the work of the IANA was largely ceremonial and non-functional, then why is the termination of such a largely ceremonial and non-functional role such a major issue, and why all the complexity of inner process? Was the NTIA’s actual role different from that commonly understood? Or is this envisaged IANA vastly different to that of the IANA of today? Why is this such a complex and protracted production effort?
[13:32:12] <Eric Burger57208> e.g., don’t forget us folks in the radio audience who cannot see who is speaking [MIC?]
[13:32:14] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[13:32:34] <Klensin> @eric: Jari at the moment
[13:32:41] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[13:32:43] <Andrew Sullivan> He did say his name, he just sort of swallowed it.
[13:32:49] Moeen Aqrabawi joins the room
[13:32:50] <Ted.H> Eric, did you want that reflected to the MIC?
[13:32:51] <Eric Burger57208> Thanks. Must have missed it.
[13:33:00] <Eric Burger57208> @Ted: just be vigilant :-)
[13:33:09] <Lorenzo Miniero> Presentation is over
[13:33:20] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 1: What Does This Mean?
[13:33:23] <B_Smith> org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx
[13:33:24] <B_Smith> [09:06] < ajsaf> Alissa is ok on remote audio?
[13:33:27] <Eric Burger57208> @Ted: I would have, had jck not pointed out I just missed him saying it.
[13:33:37] Desiree Miloshevic joins the room
[13:33:48] <Dave Thaler> next set of slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-2.pptx
[13:33:52] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 2: Stuff requested
[13:34:48] Lee Howard joins the room
[13:35:09] Konstantinos Komaitis joins the room
[13:35:15] <bortzmeyer> Geoff Huston:  thanks for the excellent summary of the process!
[13:35:23] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 3: Stuff requested (2)
[13:35:29] alex.amirante joins the room
[13:36:11] Ted.H leaves the room
[13:36:30] <Samuel Weiler> Russ Housley
[13:36:35] alex.amirante leaves the room
[13:37:19] alex.amirante joins the room
[13:37:28] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 4: A suggestion
[13:37:32] Lee Howard leaves the room
[13:38:18] Brenden Kuerbis joins the room
[13:39:14] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 5: Have we done everything?
[13:39:29] Lee Howard joins the room
[13:39:30] <Brian Trammell> (Brian Carpenter going to mic)
[13:40:14] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[13:40:18] <Joe Hall> could someone elaborate on the Avri case that isn't working?
[13:40:19] <Eric Burger57208> MIC: *PLEASE* do not take this opportunity to try to change things. There will be lots of moving parts in any transition, and changing anything we want from IANA during the transition will not help any transition.
[13:40:48] Moeen Aqrabawi leaves the room
[13:41:26] <Brian Trammell> Eric: I'm in line on that one (4th in queue)
[13:41:30] <Eric Burger57208> thanks
[13:41:32] <B_Smith> org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-ianaplan-1.pptx
[13:41:32] <B_Smith> [09:06] < ajsaf> Alissa is ok on remote audio?
[13:41:32] <B_Smith> [09:06] < ajsaf> Alissa is ok on remote audio?
[13:41:59] Gavin Brown joins the room
[13:42:31] <avri doria> I suppose I could.  I am refering to the issue of RFC 6761 and the fact that it opne up a door for collisons between what the IETF considers should be in a reserved list and what ICANN thinks should be in a TLD reserved list.  There is as far as I can tell no fomal structure for dealing with thatt kind of  conflcit where IANA may need to repsond to two different authorities.
[13:42:33] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 4: A suggestion
[13:42:33] <Samuel Weiler> John Klensin was speaking
[13:42:46] rgb joins the room
[13:42:48] <Joe Hall> ty avri
[13:42:59] Ted.H joins the room
[13:43:06] <Geoff Huston> There is a sense in Alissa’s presentation, and in listening to Andrew Sullivan of three distinct and disjoint efforts here, and no particular sense of any determined effort to join these disjoint efforts into a cohesive whole. The choice of the adjective “Coordination” implies some level of expectation here that the result may well be a very different collection of IANA function operators than that of today. And that may well be a worthy objective, but to what extent is this an exercise of a transition from today to an NTIA-less IANA and an exercise of a transition to a new set of registration functions and accountabilities where the term “IANA" is more of an adjective than a unitary function.
[13:43:20] frodek joins the room
[13:43:25] <avri doria> as there are currently IDs, i beleive that might result in that sort of condition, i think that corss-accountaibily issue need to be considered.
[13:43:27] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 5: Have we done everything?
[13:43:36] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 4: A suggestion
[13:43:47] <Geoff Huston> For example, Andrew just said “We are not responsible for the other parts"
[13:44:00] <avri doria> but i am useing it as a example, not per se comp,aing about the process that wwent on.  Lets call it a case study.
[13:44:06] <Samuel Weiler> Peter Koch.
[13:44:16] <Brian Trammell> geoff: do you want any of this on the mic?
[13:44:21] <Eric Burger57208> @Geoff - we may not be responsible for the other parts, but we are certainly interdependent
[13:44:46] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[13:44:51] Matthew Ford joins the room
[13:44:52] <avri doria> whereas i think there are cross accountabilty issues that need to be explored.
[13:44:57] <Lee Howard> Well, "we" IETF don't own the name and address part; the ICG has to pull them together.  BUt yes, Alissa said names, numbers, protocols will develop independently, and then get lasso'd together somehow.
[13:44:57] B Roseman leaves the room
[13:45:19] Paolo saviano joins the room
[13:45:21] <Geoff Huston> no - Its not a mic statement. Its just some thoughts as I listen to these presentations that may be of interest to the others in this jabber room. Nothing more
[13:45:23] <avri doria> also as much as the IETF may not like it, there are global multistakeholder community issues that may need exploration once the current proces is documented.
[13:45:35] Klensin leaves the room
[13:45:38] <Brian Carpenter> @avri: and my point is that there are certainly cross-coordination issues to address, but that is ortogonal to accountability
[13:45:38] <avri doria> just saying
[13:45:44] Klensin joins the room
[13:45:46] maria farrell joins the room
[13:45:50] Paolo saviano leaves the room
[13:46:15] Barbara Roseman joins the room
[13:46:24] alex.amirante leaves the room
[13:46:32] <Samuel Weiler> Lee: except that, to some degree, we do own the address part.  At least parts of the address part.
[13:46:36] <avri doria> Brian, perhaps wee have diffent defintions of what accoutabilty includes.  IANA is accountable to aall f the clients.  if there is a conflict due to cross-coordination faulure, how does it deal with it, who is it accountable too.
[13:46:39] <Suzanne Woolf> @avri— there are two active drafts requesting special names under the RFC 6761 process, a WG now chartered to take up those questions, and a liaison going to ICANN from the IAB specifically making them aware of that work (all per the DNSOP WG chairs' update Tuesday morning, with additional comments from Andrew as shepherd of the IAB liaison with ICANN). I understand your concern re: coordination, but would point out that the IETF is actively working to avoid the kind of problem you're talking about, including engagement with ICANN.
[13:47:09] <Samuel Weiler> Eliot Lear
[13:47:09] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[13:47:11] <resnick> @Geoff, I was thinking about the same thing, but at a slightly different angle: When it comes to names and numbers, it has always been understood that the IETF gets to define the technical structure and use of names and numbers. Where is *that* written down? I fear that "these are completely independent tasks" will be taken by someone to mean that we no longer have that authority.
[13:47:35] <resnick> @Suz: 6761 ain't in the list in the charter.
[13:47:54] <Brian Carpenter> @avri, "if there is a conflict due to cross-coordination faulure, how does it deal with it, who is it accountable too." Quite possibly to nobody. really.
[13:47:55] <avri doria> suzanne, tat is good.  I think all of that needs to be documented and understood.  At this point it is sort of informal.
[13:48:24] <Eric Burger57208> thanks
[13:48:30] <Samuel Weiler> Jari Arkko
[13:49:12] <avri doria> BTW, i also support changing as little as possible.  but i think weneed to make sure that it is all covered and discussed.
[13:49:19] <bortzmeyer> Suzanne Woolf:  then why ICANN was not involved when  IETF registered .local ? Why .onion or .gnu requires coordination with ICANN and not .local?
[13:49:22] <Eric Burger57208> @Avri - agreed
[13:49:38] <Eric Burger57208> Isn’t .local part of mDNS?
[13:49:49] <Eric Burger57208> (i.e., an IETF protocol)
[13:49:56] bje joins the room
[13:49:59] <Brian Carpenter> @resnick; " it has always been understood that the IETF gets to define the technical structure and use of names and numbers. Where is *that* written down?" isn't that covered by rfc2860?
[13:50:00] <Eric Burger57208> Of course, perhaps there SHOULD have been coordination.
[13:50:05] <Joe Hall> and .onion doesn't coordinate with anyone, right?
[13:50:16] <Joe Hall> which is why there is not yet an oniion routing RFC
[13:50:17] <Eric Burger57208> TOR folks might have a thought…
[13:50:19] <Samuel Weiler> Lars-Johan Liman
[13:50:43] <Samuel Weiler> (holding the mic stand like a rock-n-roller)
[13:50:48] <bortzmeyer> Eric Burger57208: OK, so, if Namecoin were described in a RFC, we could register .bit without any coordination with ICANN?
[13:50:57] resnick goes to have a read through 2860
[13:50:59] alex.amirante joins the room
[13:51:03] <Suzanne Woolf> @avri, no it's not informal. There's been extensive discussion on various mailing lists about the drafts and RFC 6761, DNSOP rechartered partly so namespace coordination issues would be in scope for us, and the summary I just gave here was also on the record.
[13:51:20] <Eric Burger57208> @Stephen: you are echoing my last comment: perhaps we SHOULD have coordinated with ICANN over .local
[13:51:21] <Samuel Weiler> Bernard Aboba
[13:51:33] <Eric Burger57208> However, I would say ‘coordinate’, not ‘defer’
[13:51:51] <Eric Burger57208> As Pete keeps saying, the bits that are protocol related really should belong to IETF
[13:51:53] <bortzmeyer> Eric Burger57208: we coordinate with ICANN only when we want a proposal to be delayed for ever :-}
[13:51:58] <Suzanne Woolf> @stephane: .local appeared on the oldest lists I know of "reserved names," for both ICANN and the IETF, and long predates RFC 6761.
[13:52:01] <Samuel Weiler> upcoming: Leslie Daigle, Alissa Cooper, Russ Mundy, Olaf Kolkman
[13:52:03] <Geoff Huston> @Pete: true - the demarcation of roles is perhaps not clearly defined in documentation, But to what extent are these NTIA-transition issues? I'm not sure that the NTIA never saw itself acting as referee here, so in some sense what I see is a growing agenda that starts with the observation that "well, while we are doing this, lets also…" I was trying to point out that such a conflation of the agenda has its own attendant risks in this overall process.
[13:52:04] alex.amirante leaves the room
[13:52:17] <Brian Carpenter> @eric: no, at least as I interpret "technical" domain names (the example in the MOU is .iana)
[13:52:34] alessandro.amirante joins the room
[13:52:35] <Eric Burger57208> @Geoff - the issue is some other governance regime might say “IETF? Who is that?”
[13:52:36] <Dave Thaler> @Brian Carpenter: RFC 2860 says "Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section 4."
[13:52:58] <Brian Carpenter> Yeah, I wrote that text
[13:53:01] <bortzmeyer> Suzanne Woolf: my memory fails here. URL of these IETF reserved names list? (Besides RFC 2606)
[13:53:31] <Dave Thaler> so yes I agree with you
[13:53:31] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[13:53:42] <Joe Hall> MOUs are contracts
[13:54:19] <Suzanne Woolf> sorry, trying to follow conversation in the room, will get back to it. But note that 6761 is pretty new. The reserved names concept significantly predates it. There's an appendix to RFC 6762 (IIRC) that's also relevant.
[13:54:26] <Eric Burger57208> Leslie is making my point: some other ICANN governance regime might screw us.
[13:55:01] <Eric Burger57208> That is why we need to care and look at not only our needs, but that the new regime supports our needs.
[13:55:21] <Brian Carpenter> @eric: yes, but that is out of IETF control for now
[13:55:46] <Eric Burger57208> @Brian - I’m not saying that we need control, but we need to be vigilant.
[13:55:47] <Barbara Roseman> RFC 2606 lists:                    .test
                .example
                .invalid
              .localhost
[13:55:53] <Brian Carpenter> +1
[13:56:04] <Klensin> FWIW, I completely agree with comments that we should try to avoid making any changes in our processes and relationships that are unrelated to the NTIA transition right now.   But, unless we think that the other actors in this drama will be allowed, post-transition, to get away with purely self-auditing procedures wrt the ways they generate instructions to IANA, we may be forced to reexamine ours... and I think we should be prepared for that possibility, not need to treat it as an emergency if/when it comes up.
[13:56:38] <Barbara Roseman> some others: http://www.iana.org/domains/reserved
[13:56:41] <resnick> @Geoff: I guess I'm asking the question, "Is this an NTIA transition issue?" Right now, is the presence of NTIA (whether or not they actually would referee) what is keeping the names and numbers folks from deciding that the IETF does not control the technical details? If so, do we need to make it clear now that the threat of NTIA intervening is going away? (And those are truly questions. I have no opinion either way.)
[13:57:38] coopdanger joins the room
[13:58:22] <Samuel Weiler> Jaro Arkko (again); Olaf left the queue.
[13:58:39] <Eric Burger57208> Ooh - thanks for pointing the camera at the line! Very helpful.
[13:58:51] <Lorenzo Miniero> yep, sorry, should have done that sooner :)
[13:58:54] <Samuel Weiler> (technology!)
[13:59:07] <Lee Howard> Those audio shotgun blasts are bad for my heart
[13:59:13] Klensin joins the room
[13:59:15] <resnick> (And perhaps the answer is that an RFC produced by this WG simply says somewhere, "Oh, BTW, we have the technical authority on the structure and use of names and numbers", but nothing needs to be added to the contracts/MoUs in particular.)
[13:59:31] <Joe Hall> hard to tell where they're coming from, Lee… jari isn't touching the mich, Andrew is not moving
[13:59:44] <bortzmeyer> Barbara Roseman:  thanks, but .local was never in these lists
[13:59:44] coopdanger leaves the room
[14:00:02] <Joe Hall> s/Olaf/Larry Masinter/
[14:00:22] <Samuel Weiler> :-)
[14:00:28] <resnick> (And if anyone thinks any of my comments belong at the mic, tell me, because otherwise I'm staying in my chair.)
[14:01:02] <Cindy Morgan> I suspect the audio shot noises are from people stepping on the taped-down cables (and as someone who just did that, my apologies!)
[14:01:24] coopdanger joins the room
[14:01:30] Dan York joins the room
[14:01:56] <Samuel Weiler> John Levine
[14:02:05] coopdanger leaves the room
[14:02:26] <resnick> @Brian/Dave: That talks about assignments of certain kinds of names/numbers, but doesn't talk about the definitions of the structures and use of the name/numbers.
[14:02:53] <Eric Burger57208> ICANN also wants the parameter registry because it gives them legitimacy.
[14:02:54] <Samuel Weiler> Jari.
[14:03:35] metricamerica joins the room
[14:03:36] <Brian Carpenter> @resnick: true. Whether it's a good idea to turn that stone over is another questiom.
[14:04:04] <resnick> @brian: I agree. Hence my remaining in my seat.
[14:04:24] <Eric Burger57208> @Pete - keep it for input to any document any WG would produce
[14:04:26] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 6: IANAPLAN at IETF90
[14:04:38] <Eric Burger57208> @Lorenzo - time to move the camera again.
[14:05:16] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 7: Content of charter
[14:05:22] coopdanger joins the room
[14:05:31] coopdanger leaves the room
[14:05:32] coopdanger joins the room
[14:05:34] <latourjacques> quick one: in the IANA protocol registry,when adding/changing/deleting parameters, does NTIA get involved in approving/revising the change? like they do in the name registry?
[14:05:41] <Lorenzo Miniero> thanks for reminding me, I was updating the slides
[14:05:50] Klensin joins the room
[14:06:06] Klensin leaves the room
[14:06:21] <Eric Burger57208> MIC: “Do we need a WG?” - I was convinced by your [Andrew’s] thought that we need a venue for IETF consensus.
[14:06:23] <Geoff Huston> @Jaques: no
[14:06:30] alessandro.amirante leaves the room
[14:06:36] <Barbara Roseman> @latourjacques: no, not on a routine basis. There are some outliers here, but basically the answer is no
[14:07:05] <Samuel Weiler> Klensin
[14:07:15] maria farrell_5688 joins the room
[14:07:18] <Brian Trammell> @eric MIC ACK
[14:08:01] <bortzmeyer> Barbara Roseman: latourjacques: Then, may be it would be a good idea to drop the name registry (leave it to the lawyers and politicians) and keep only the protocol registry (which is less sensitive)
[14:08:10] maria farrell leaves the room
[14:08:31] <rgb> given it is a wireless mic, I have trouble accepting that explanation...
[14:08:32] <Eric Burger57208> Also for MIC: I don’t see this proposed charter as being significantly longer or more complicated than others. I also agree with Andrew - newbies will be confused w/o background.
[14:08:34] <resnick> @Eric: I am personally a big believer in leaving certain things to "constitutional crises": We don't write certain things down because sort them out ahead of time would be really hard, but if someone were actually to challenge such a principle, it would cause such a constitutional crisis that nobody would ever consider challenging it.
[14:08:57] wood joins the room
[14:09:00] <Samuel Weiler> Eliot Lear.
[14:09:04] <resnick> The background is 6 sentences. 6. I disagree with John on this.
[14:09:07] <Eric Burger57208> Thanks Brian. You make a good me :-)
[14:09:23] <resnick> I do not think this is long and complicated *at all*.
[14:09:26] <Eric Burger57208> In fact, a better me than me 😇
[14:09:49] <Brian Trammell> I'll take that as a compliment. ;)
[14:09:55] <bje> pete, expand each of the references within it and it becomes quite long :-)
[14:09:59] <Eric Burger57208> It is.
[14:10:29] <Samuel Weiler> Leslie.
[14:10:51] spromano@jabber.org joins the room
[14:11:29] <Samuel Weiler> Larry Masinter.
[14:11:30] alessandro amirante leaves the room
[14:11:47] <Barry Leiba> Pete: I thought JCK was talking about the ICG charter, not this one.
[14:11:47] Klensin leaves the room
[14:12:12] <Samuel Weiler> Barry: I thought he was talking about both
[14:12:17] Lee Howard leaves the room
[14:12:32] <Barry Leiba> Clearly, he wasn't clear.
[14:12:39] <Samuel Weiler> Clearly.
[14:12:42] bortzmeyer leaves the room
[14:12:44] <Eric Burger57208> Opaquely
[14:13:08] Lee Howard joins the room
[14:13:13] <Samuel Weiler> that was Bernard.  Now Alissa.  
[14:14:07] <Lorenzo Miniero> Slide 8: WG?
[14:14:22] <Eric Burger57208> MIC: “Is there a real problem here?” Well, yes, but PLEASE do not confuse ‘problem’ with a typical IETF problem to be solved, i.e., a technology problem. There is a looming problem with a few of the possible transition scenarios, and we much be vigilant to ensure the IETF does not become irrelevant. So, yes, there is a real problem here.
[14:15:03] Klensin joins the room
[14:15:04] <Brian Trammell> mic ack
[14:15:20] <Eliot Lear> eric, did jari address your point?
[14:15:32] <Samuel Weiler> Bernard.  (Jari before)
[14:15:34] <Eric Burger57208> Almost, but I think it would be helpful for others who may be pushing back.
[14:15:59] <Samuel Weiler> Jari
[14:16:40] bortzmeyer joins the room
[14:16:41] <Samuel Weiler> Brain as Eric
[14:17:07] bortzmeyer has problem with the Wifi
[14:17:07] <Eric Burger57208> thanks
[14:17:14] <Brian Trammell> welcome
[14:18:13] <Geoff Huston> I sense diverse perspectives here: one is along the lines of the IETF being a customer of a service provided by part of the IANA and the need to preserve its interests as a customer of a service, and the other being a view that the IETF is a stakeholder in an effort to build a new and wonderful IANA, and that this is not a transition of the NTIA’s role wrt IANA as much a transition to a somewhat different IANA structure.
[14:18:35] <Eric Burger57208> Hummmmm
[14:18:48] Gavin Brown leaves the room
[14:18:56] <avri doria> would hum yes on all bullets if i was in the room.
[14:19:09] <Eric Burger57208> Hummmmmm
[14:19:13] <resnick> I would have preferred if he reversed the order of those hums, but I *think* the outcome would be the same.
[14:19:13] hildjj leaves the room
[14:19:43] <Eric Burger57208> 😸
[14:19:52] <avri doria> though i must say, i am not sure my nderstanding is the same as the understanding others have.
[14:20:10] <Samuel Weiler> resnick: didn't you have a recent RFC suggesting how to ask these things?  :-)
[14:20:20] <Samuel Weiler> Geoff Huston
[14:20:21] <resnick> Did I?
[14:20:24] <resnick> ;)
[14:21:16] <avri doria> the NTIA was something.  they had the oversight to deal with anything that went wrong if something were to have gone wrong.
[14:21:38] <Eric Burger57208> The question is whether the NTIA
[14:21:57] <avri doria> if the relationship with ICANN were to have gone to the dogs, they are the folks people would have turned to.
[14:21:58] <Barry Leiba> Which is why we said "change as little as possible".
[14:21:59] <Eric Burger57208> NTIA’s existence kept ICANN honest, or was ICANN was always honest
[14:22:23] <Eric Burger57208> Many (myself included) think the threat of NTIA was enough
[14:22:26] <Eric Burger57208> That threat is going away
[14:22:41] <Barbara Roseman> The question is, what does the IETF want to see as the "new" oversight function, as in, how to preserve what's done currently
[14:22:43] <Eric Burger57208> If nothing replaces it, ICANN has shown their ability to do stupid stuff, which worries me
[14:22:44] <avri doria> That is the cruzx of the accountabilty argument.
[14:22:45] maria farrell_5688 leaves the room
[14:22:54] <Samuel Weiler> Olaf
[14:23:34] <Ted.H> So we don't have a problem, we have a documentation requirement?
[14:23:51] <bje> not having an appropriate document is a problem
[14:24:07] <Suzanne Woolf> There's a need to "show our work" when we say this is a non-issue, otherwise people *will* worry.
[14:24:26] <bortzmeyer> Eric Burger57208: so you see the US governement as a benevolent steward for the reay-to-go-mad ICANN?
[14:24:28] <Samuel Weiler> Pete
[14:24:34] <Klensin> @Eric, "honest" isn't the work I would use but, if you tried something like "free of abuses", either NTIA has been completely ineffective or one has to use a lot of imagination to imagine how much worse it could have been.  But that is Not Our Problem, at least in this context, especially since ICANN hasn't messed with protocol parameter functions in any serious way since its first few years.
[14:25:32] <avri doria> as someone who lives both in IETF and ICANN, i think there is a problem.
[14:25:35] <Eric Burger57208> ICANN went mad. Can you say gTLD? Anyway, I’m kind of in jck’s camp: it’s been bad, but it could have been a lot worse. As Pete is saying right now, if there is no oversight, things are highly likely to get “real bad.”
[14:26:01] Lee Howard leaves the room
[14:26:06] <Eric Burger57208> It isn’t a USG domination thing.
[14:26:10] <Samuel Weiler> Russ Mundy
[14:26:58] <bortzmeyer> Eric Burger57208: of course i is
[14:27:35] Brian Trammell leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[14:27:35] Brian Trammell joins the room
[14:28:09] <Samuel Weiler> Jari.  Next: Alissa, Bernard.
[14:28:36] Klensin leaves the room
[14:30:18] <Klensin> Clarification to my "length" comment after a side-conversation: my concern/preference, like Pete's is that we do as little as possible rather than finding oceans to boil.   Partially because of the length and structure, I don't think that comes through clearly in the charter.   For a "normal" WG, I wouldn't bother worrying about it but this one is operating in an area in which hair-splitting about issues of scope and authority will occur and over-flexible language is likely to attract it.
[14:30:20] <Suzanne Woolf> It seems that part of the "problem" may be that we live in a world where not everyone thinks that "ICANN went mad" in creating the new gTLD program, and the IETF has to live in that world and protect its interests there.
[14:30:21] <Eric Burger57208> @Stéphane: people take it both ways. The Evil USG™ exercises unholy domination over ICANN through the NTIA contract. versus The lazy NTIA does nothing with respect to ICANN. My point is ICANN needs some governance. It certainly does not need to come from a sleepy corner of a dormant corner of an agency of the USG.
[14:31:11] <resnick> I didn't know what the IPROC was last week.
[14:32:43] <Eric Burger57208> Hummmmm
[14:32:43] <Brian Trammell> (for remotes: very weak no-hum)
[14:32:51] <Eric Burger57208> interesting
[14:32:56] <Brian Trammell> (on the first q)
[14:33:58] <resnick> @JCK: Thanks. That helped.
[14:34:16] Lee Howard joins the room
[14:34:28] <resnick> Important that the charter say, "Change as little as possible, no more, no less."
[14:35:07] <Eric Burger57208> @Geoff — Um, no. There were TONS of work groups around the RFC Editor transition.
[14:35:08] <Samuel Weiler> Geoff
[14:36:08] <avri doria> is IPROC documented anywhere?
[14:36:24] <resnick> Geez, I have an incredible amount of sympathy for Geoff's position.
[14:36:42] <Barbara Roseman> @ Avri: yes, there's a web page linked from the ietf home page
[14:36:57] <Samuel Weiler> Leslie
[14:37:01] <avri doria> found the page  http://www.ietf.org/iana/iproc.html
[14:37:02] Geoff Huston leaves the room
[14:37:03] Geoff Huston joins the room
[14:37:03] Geoff Huston leaves the room
[14:37:16] <Barbara Roseman> http://www.ietf.org/iana/iproc.html
[14:37:17] <Eric Burger57208> Am I mis-remembering? I vaguely recall a lot of angst and BOFs, at least, around what we wanted for a post-Braden world.
[14:37:50] <Samuel Weiler> Brian!
[14:38:00] Geoff Huston joins the room
[14:38:01] <bje> brian sounds a lot like eric to me
[14:38:10] <Eric Burger57208> 😄
[14:38:26] <Samuel Weiler> Can the plenary discuss it on an etherpad?
[14:38:32] <Klensin> @Suz: yes
[14:38:33] Eric Burger57208 leaves the room
[14:38:35] <Dave Thaler> I notice there are no minutes posted on the iproc page
[14:39:06] <Klensin> But, as you know, I wasn't referring primarily to the gTLD program.
[14:39:16] <Samuel Weiler> Ran Atkinson.
[14:39:16] <Dave Thaler> just a note saying "Begin posting after 1/27/14"
[14:39:28] Eric Burger19774 joins the room
[14:39:47] <resnick> Yep, what Ran said.
[14:43:00] Sean Turner joins the room
[14:43:02] <Samuel Weiler> Erik Nordmark
[14:43:11] Ted.H leaves the room
[14:43:14] Ted.H joins the room
[14:43:26] <Sean Turner> for what it's worth a big +1 to what brian trammell said earlier
[14:43:33] <Sean Turner> (as an individual)
[14:48:20] <st.amour@jabber.org> I do think Jari's point about being able to say: "the IETF says XX"  is very important - externally.
[14:48:55] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[14:49:02] <Geoff Huston> +1 to Jari's summary
[14:49:05] Brian Trammell leaves the room: Disconnected: session closed
[14:49:07] resnick leaves the room
[14:49:09] Ted.H leaves the room
[14:49:09] Matthew Ford leaves the room
[14:49:10] Konstantinos Komaitis leaves the room
[14:49:11] Barbara Roseman leaves the room
[14:49:14] latourjacques leaves the room
[14:49:16] Matthew Ford joins the room
[14:49:17] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[14:49:20] Matthew Ford leaves the room
[14:49:21] Joe Hall leaves the room
[14:49:21] Suzanne Woolf joins the room
[14:49:24] Suzanne Woolf leaves the room
[14:49:25] <Eric Burger19774> Thanks for channeling!
[14:49:25] Alexa  Morris leaves the room
[14:49:27] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[14:49:30] avri doria leaves the room
[14:49:31] Eric Burger19774 leaves the room
[14:49:36] <Lorenzo Miniero> done here, we'll make recordings available soon on http://ietf90.conf.meetecho.com
[14:49:58] yone leaves the room
[14:49:59] bje leaves the room
[14:50:00] Brenden Kuerbis leaves the room
[14:50:04] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[14:50:36] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[14:50:36] coopdanger leaves the room
[14:50:39] Eric Burger leaves the room
[14:50:41] Lynn St Amour leaves the room
[14:50:46] ed lewis leaves the room
[14:50:57] fdupont leaves the room: Computer went to sleep
[14:51:00] Meetecho RAV leaves the room
[14:51:06] Andrew Sullivan_1908 leaves the room
[14:51:23] wood leaves the room
[14:51:24] Cindy Morgan leaves the room
[14:51:43] Tomohiro Fujisaki leaves the room
[14:51:50] Desiree Miloshevic leaves the room
[14:52:17] Dan York leaves the room
[14:52:24] John Leslie leaves the room
[14:52:36] Ray Pelletier leaves the room
[14:52:48] <Lorenzo Miniero> Presentation is over
[14:52:50] frodek leaves the room
[14:52:54] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[14:54:03] st.amour@jabber.org leaves the room
[14:54:40] Lee Howard leaves the room
[14:55:42] Sean Turner leaves the room
[14:55:52] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[14:57:18] spamvictim leaves the room
[14:58:16] Scott Brim leaves the room
[14:58:56] liman leaves the room
[15:02:08] metricamerica leaves the room
[15:03:57] Geoff Huston leaves the room
[15:04:06] wseltzer leaves the room
[15:04:11] Geoff Huston joins the room
[15:05:36] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[15:05:36] Suzanne Woolf leaves the room
[15:05:36] Dave Thaler leaves the room
[15:07:36] Klensin leaves the room
[15:07:36] wood joins the room
[15:12:44] Geoff Huston leaves the room
[15:15:54] Hugo Salgado leaves the room
[15:16:37] Geoff Huston joins the room
[15:17:10] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[15:17:16] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[15:17:34] coopdanger joins the room
[15:22:11] Geoff Huston leaves the room
[15:24:18] Brian Trammell joins the room
[15:24:24] bortzmeyer leaves the room
[15:24:31] Brian Trammell leaves the room
[15:27:36] coopdanger leaves the room
[15:30:49] wseltzer joins the room
[15:31:45] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[15:32:08] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[15:32:27] B_Smith leaves the room
[15:39:45] liman joins the room
[15:49:32] liman leaves the room
[15:50:07] spromano@jabber.org leaves the room
[15:59:25] Joe Hall joins the room
[15:59:36] liman joins the room
[16:01:38] liman leaves the room
[16:03:50] liman joins the room
[16:03:50] Joe Hall leaves the room
[16:05:41] Joe Hall joins the room
[16:06:10] Joe Hall leaves the room
[16:08:33] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[16:10:01] liman leaves the room
[16:13:07] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[16:31:34] Eliot Lear joins the room
[16:37:52] liman joins the room
[16:49:46] hildjj joins the room
[16:56:25] Geoff Huston joins the room
[16:56:28] hildjj leaves the room
[16:59:37] wseltzer leaves the room
[17:00:37] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[17:00:51] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[17:01:18] coopdanger joins the room
[17:01:27] wood leaves the room
[17:01:37] wseltzer joins the room
[17:01:47] Ted.H joins the room
[17:02:41] Ted.H leaves the room
[17:03:33] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[17:03:47] Barbara Roseman joins the room
[17:03:48] Eliot Lear joins the room
[17:09:12] Simon Romano joins the room
[17:11:41] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[17:16:09] Brian Carpenter leaves the room: offline
[17:17:45] Suzanne Woolf joins the room
[17:18:07] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[17:18:12] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[17:22:36] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[17:24:30] wood joins the room
[17:27:07] coopdanger leaves the room
[17:27:20] coopdanger joins the room
[17:29:42] Suzanne Woolf leaves the room
[17:35:32] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[17:35:35] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[17:35:41] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[17:38:56] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[17:41:05] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[17:45:12] Eliot Lear joins the room
[17:49:17] wseltzer leaves the room
[17:50:44] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[17:58:12] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[17:58:18] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[18:03:19] wood leaves the room
[18:03:40] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[18:11:49] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[18:20:15] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[18:31:38] Simon Romano leaves the room
[18:32:12] liman leaves the room
[18:39:13] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[18:39:19] nordmark@jabber.de joins the room
[18:40:38] coopdanger leaves the room
[19:00:12] Barbara Roseman leaves the room
[19:01:54] nordmark@jabber.de leaves the room
[19:05:06] Geoff Huston leaves the room
[19:10:33] Simon Romano joins the room
[19:13:56] Barbara Roseman joins the room
[19:23:50] Eliot Lear joins the room
[19:27:53] coopdanger joins the room
[19:32:30] wood joins the room
[19:41:32] coopdanger leaves the room
[19:42:28] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[19:46:43] Eliot Lear joins the room
[20:11:47] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[20:13:25] Barbara Roseman leaves the room
[20:17:29] rgb leaves the room
[20:43:15] wood leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[20:43:15] wood joins the room
[21:15:55] wood leaves the room
[21:50:52] Simon Romano leaves the room