Monday, November 10, 2014< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[22:56:34] sftcd   joins the room
[22:56:44] sftcd   leaves the room
[22:58:06] sftcd joins the room
[22:59:07] sftcd   joins the room
[22:59:13] david perkins joins the room
[22:59:17] sftcd   leaves the room
[23:00:06] sftcd leaves the room
[23:01:16] Stephen Farrell joins the room
[23:03:27] Dave Crocker joins the room
[23:03:41] Roger Carney joins the room
[23:03:49] Lars joins the room
[23:04:02] Andy joins the room
[23:04:32] <Andy> session called to order by Leslie
[23:04:37] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[23:04:41] <Andy> Note Well
[23:04:47] Ted_Hardie joins the room
[23:04:49] Cullen Jennings joins the room
[23:05:33] <Andy> slide 1: agenda
[23:05:34] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[23:05:42] shoji joins the room
[23:05:49] <Andy> slide 2: administrative
[23:05:53] adrianfarrel joins the room
[23:06:02] <Andy> slide 3: timeline
[23:06:03] Barry Leiba joins the room
[23:06:05] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[23:06:07] Lee Howard joins the room
[23:06:08] yone joins the room
[23:06:09] Ned Freed joins the room
[23:06:20] Ned Freed leaves the room
[23:06:21] Sean Turner joins the room
[23:06:23] John Klensin joins the room
[23:06:24] Suzanne joins the room
[23:06:25] <marc.blanchet.qc> co-chair: admin slides
[23:06:28] Martin Duerst joins the room
[23:06:43] rik.ribbers joins the room
[23:06:50] <david perkins> can the camera be re-positioned to point to the speaker
[23:06:55] Dan York joins the room
[23:07:04] Dan York has set the subject to: IANAPLAN at IETF91
[23:07:14] CJ Aronson joins the room
[23:07:25] <Andy> Leslie is a the mic on the platform
[23:07:34] <Alissa Cooper> the meetecho appears to have stepped away
[23:07:45] <Andy> slide 4: goals
[23:07:50] <Alissa Cooper> *meetech guy
[23:07:54] Barbara Roseman joins the room
[23:08:01] niels joins the room
[23:08:06] Sally Wentworth joins the room
[23:08:11] <Martin Duerst> in Meetecho, only the middle part of the slide shows, not right or left.
[23:08:30] shinta joins the room
[23:08:44] niels leaves the room
[23:08:45] Niels ten Oever joins the room
[23:08:49] <Andy> Eliot Leer discussing ianaplan-icg-response
[23:08:51] <Stephen Farrell> meetecho seems fine here
[23:09:11] Tony Hansen joins the room
[23:09:29] <Alissa Cooper> slides are here:
[23:09:38] <Andy> slide 2: changes
[23:09:44] <Stephen Farrell> albeit video is pretty boring not pointing at aything in particular:-)
[23:09:46] Aaron joins the room
[23:09:59] shinta leaves the room
[23:10:03] <Andy> slide 3: changes after -02
[23:10:22] <Andy> slide 4:
[23:10:41] <Andy> Add factual changes on use of IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG>
[23:11:43] <Alissa Cooper> tried to redirect the camera
[23:11:44] <david perkins> Thanks for camera re-position - can now see speakers!
[23:11:51] <Andy> slide 5
[23:12:02] <Andy> clarification of overlap
[23:12:03] <Stephen Farrell> +1 to camera dude:-)
[23:12:29] Joana Varon joins the room
[23:12:38] Glenn Kowack joins the room
[23:12:53] <Andy> slide 6
[23:13:07] <Andy> wg adoption as one way do work
[23:13:20] <Andy> slide 7
[23:13:32] <Andy> add earlier discussion of special use registries
[23:13:34] Frederico A C Neves joins the room
[23:13:52] <Andy> slide 8
[23:13:59] <Andy> clarify how long IAB members serve
[23:14:18] Alexa Morris joins the room
[23:14:24] <Andy> slide 9
[23:14:27] <Andy> IETF trust
[23:14:40] <Andy> slide 10
[23:14:55] <Andy> coordination regarding special use registries
[23:15:05] <Andy> sorry... coordination of special use domain names
[23:15:31] <Andy> slide 11
[23:15:32] Alexa Morris leaves the room
[23:15:51] <Andy> slide 12
[23:15:56] <Andy> mention .arpa
[23:16:51] <Andy> slide 13
[23:17:03] <Andy> .arpa pros posed text
[23:17:22] <Andy> slide 14
[23:17:28] <Andy> handling <>
[23:18:57] Jari Arkko joins the room
[23:19:55] <Andy> slide 15
[23:19:59] <Andy> <> continued
[23:20:51] <Andy> slide 16: proposal
[23:21:10] Ned Freed joins the room
[23:21:38] <Andy> slide 17: rationale
[23:22:11] wood joins the room
[23:22:12] <Andy> slide 18: proposed text
[23:23:02] <Andy> slide 19
[23:23:16] <Andy> slide 20: role of IAB and IAOC
[23:23:22] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[23:23:54] hildjj joins the room
[23:24:45] <Andy> Eliot asks members of the IAOC to raise their hands
[23:24:53] <Andy> asks if they have sufficient clarity
[23:24:56] <Alissa Cooper> most of the iaoc is in the room by a show of hands
[23:25:03] <Andy> bob hinder: member of IAOC, but not speaking for them
[23:25:28] <hildjj> "hinden"
[23:25:56] <Andy> what should the IAOC do if they can’t do it. a lot is being asked of the IAOC. it may need more guidance
[23:26:21] <Andy> philip hallam-baker: less worried about the name and more about switching costs
[23:27:10] <Andy> decouple IETF from ICANN storm about domains
[23:27:23] <Andy> no need to be attached to name, change .arpa to .internet
[23:27:51] <Andy> IETF should own the brand of the registry, which is then run by IANA
[23:28:16] <Dave Crocker> MIC:  Eliot had an early slide that explained the issue with the domain name: it's use is embedded in quite a bit of documentation and operations infrastructure.  That makes switching costs high.
[23:28:29] <Andy> leslie: state what problem that needs to be solved
[23:28:32] rbarnes joins the room
[23:28:41] <Barry Leiba> in q, Dave
[23:28:49] <Dave Crocker> tnx
[23:28:53] <Andy> scott broadener: can’t stay out of food fight
[23:29:08] <Andy> as member of IAOC, not sure the IAOC should negotiate
[23:29:18] <rbarnes > s/broadener/bradner/
[23:29:22] <Andy> historically it the task of the IETF and IAB chair
[23:29:34] <Andrew Sullivan> Ow!  that potato is red hot!
[23:29:36] <Andy> (auto-correct is fighting me)
[23:29:42] <Stephen Farrell> MIC: switching costs would be high and are undesirable but the point is we could do it if we had to, let's not panic and overplan now
[23:30:01] <Barry Leiba> Stephen: got you too
[23:30:06] <Stephen Farrell> ta
[23:30:08] <Andy> jari: wg provides guidance, lawyering is done by another party
[23:30:57] <Stephen Farrell> and btw Eliot's text seems ok at first glance fwiw
[23:31:09] <Andy> reasonably happy that I know what needs to be done
[23:31:29] <Andy> need to have a plan, that plan means things have to happen
[23:31:37] <Andy> transition isn’t just publish RFC
[23:32:24] Peter Koch joins the room
[23:32:26] <Andy> russ housely: say what desired outcome is
[23:32:39] <Andy> to say no confusion where to find protocol parameters
[23:32:48] <Stephen Farrell> yeah fair point from Russ
[23:32:49] <Andy> jon petersen: that is substantial improvement
[23:33:29] <Andy> owner of associated marks? owner at start of transition or on the end to the transition
[23:33:56] <Andy> eliot: need to clarify what we are transitioning from rather than to
[23:34:23] <Andy> larry mess inter: confusion about the or a subsequent operator
[23:34:40] <Andy> eliot: extra article needs to go
[23:34:42] <Dave Crocker> MIC: Switching cost is cheaper and easier when the issue is resolved before things are urgent.  So attending to the question now, for example, is a very different and easier matter than waiting until the IETF has decided to make the switch.  This is merely a matter of normal administrative and operations planning,
[23:34:50] <Andy> alissa: not sure there is a problem needing to solve
[23:35:32] Sandy Murphy joins the room
[23:35:54] <Andy> 2 suggestions about existing parties of MOU should seek to avoid minimize confusion therefore we do not need to go into the details
[23:36:14] <Andy> also, we are asking to many specifics of the IAOC
[23:36:30] <Andy> have IAB and IAOC work together
[23:36:50] <Andy> barry: channeling dave crocker
[23:37:08] <Andy> barry: channelling stephen carrel too
[23:37:18] <Andy> farrell
[23:38:06] <Andy> Andrew Sullivan: can’t have text that say negotiate without having a list of things that must be given up, otherwise these are demands
[23:38:14] <Andy> doesn’t think there is a problem to be solved
[23:38:16] resnick joins the room
[23:38:24] spamvictim joins the room
[23:38:35] <Andy> gotta say what getting additional items are worth
[23:39:05] <Andy> Andrei: issue is important, maintaining continuity is important
[23:39:35] <Andy> need to look at the united proposal, because if a united proposal cannot be made all our efforts here are mute
[23:40:02] <Andy> specify the requested outcome here, our goal is to clearly specify the outcome
[23:40:19] <Andy> in the united proposal we have to resolve those issues
[23:40:44] <Andy> Tobias: member of IAOC but not speaking for them. agrees with Russ
[23:41:37] <Andy> Leslie: problems to be solved heard: switching costs, mimizie confusion, specific requirement or outcome
[23:42:03] Meetecho joins the room
[23:42:21] <Andy> Phil Halam-Baker: important to put the reasons because the people on the other side don’t understand them
[23:42:29] <Andy> they are non-technical
[23:42:38] Joe Hall joins the room
[23:43:18] Ted_Hardie leaves the room
[23:43:21] <Andy> not a negotiation in the classical sense: we are negotiating a will before the person deeding the stuff has died
[23:43:55] <Andy> John Curran: implied negotiation aspect
[23:44:00] <John Klensin> MIC: I ten to agree with Andrew that it is desirable to avoid trying to solve problems we don't have.  I do, however, agree with the swtiching cost and "don't set up to do it in an emergency" basis.  A solution to both, would seem to be to take it off this group's table and have the IESG, (etc.) start thinking about a separate domain for protocol parameters going forward, pointing to the IANA pages for as long as that lasts.
[23:44:08] <Andy> icy has to merge together several proposals
[23:44:55] Phill joins the room
[23:44:55] <Andy> if the IETF requires something, it can say it doesn’t want a unified proposal
[23:45:22] Sally Wentworth leaves the room
[23:45:24] <Andy> implied everything IETF puts in proposal is necessary initially
[23:45:48] <Andy> Jon Petersen: problem with asking for an outcome to prescriptively
[23:46:06] <Stephen Farrell> @john-curran: we do not need but we're just fine for stuff to continue as-is
[23:46:27] <Andy> giving IAOC too much direction
[23:47:36] <Andy> sympathetic to positions of advocacy.
[23:48:07] <Andy> some negotiations were are not going to be privy of
[23:48:58] <Andy> Alissa Cooper: agrees with John Curran on must have / nice to have
[23:49:04] rbarnes leaves the room
[23:49:05] <Andy> only things to go in doc are must haves
[23:49:27] <Andy> if limited to must haves, not need to mention IAOC
[23:49:53] <Andy> unified proposal easier of all community just give must haves
[23:50:07] <Andy> people paying attention to the proposal in the other communities
[23:50:12] <Martin Duerst> MIC: Why not put "nice to have" in the draft? If another community has the same "nice to have", and a "nice to have" can be achieved without problems, it would be bad if it just got dropped.
[23:50:39] <Martin Duerst> (we can clearly label it as a SHOULD or nice to have or so)
[23:51:03] <Andy> Ted Hardie: problem tyring to solve is super set of switching costs
[23:51:34] <Andy> is it a good idea to start this risk management now, later, or never
[23:51:35] <Andy> ?
[23:51:37] rbarnes joins the room
[23:52:02] <Dave Crocker> MIC: +1 to Martin's suggestion.  -1 to Ted's comment.  Switching costs are not 'risk'.  They are expense.  The risk occurs when switching costs are left unresolved until one of the parties no longer has any choice.
[23:52:07] <Andy> looking at balance of starting complex negotiations vs increasing risks for something later not yet met
[23:52:42] rbarnes leaves the room
[23:52:43] <Phill > Stephen, we don't need unless people start trying to make protocols automatically download executable schemas which is a stupid idea anyway.
[23:52:43] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[23:53:15] <Andy> Bob Hinden: need to settle if the IETF needs to own <>
[23:53:17] <Stephen Farrell> MIC: (ok to skip if otherwise stated) we do not IMO need to own
[23:53:47] <Andy> more ability to negotiate that outcome now than later
[23:54:21] <Andy> Jari: more complex than that. <> is used by multiple parities
[23:54:34] <Andy> everybody at the mic has said to go to higher level requirements
[23:54:59] <Andy> the transition is not the only change
[23:55:17] <Andy> support only doing must haves
[23:55:30] <Barry Leiba> I'm in the (long) queue for jck, martin, dhc, and sf
[23:55:41] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[23:55:42] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[23:56:06] Joe Hall leaves the room
[23:56:08] <Andy> Geoff: changes to happen without oversight from anybody else
[23:56:18] Sandy Murphy leaves the room
[23:56:19] <Stephen Farrell> @barry: I better think of smart tings to say to get you loaded up so:-)
[23:56:33] <Barry Leiba> :-)
[23:56:36] <Andy> doc does not need to have detail about what we foresee
[23:56:56] JoeHallCDT joins the room
[23:57:18] <Andy> Eric: don’t send people to negotiate with exact list.
[23:57:46] <Andy> notion that IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG> in RFCs seems to be non-issue
[23:57:47] <Stephen Farrell> and even our errata system is screwed:-)
[23:58:11] <Andy> John Levine: this is a contract negotiation.
[23:58:23] <Andy> NTIA was there incase ICANN did something stupid
[23:58:27] <Andy> never happened
[23:59:00] Ted_Hardie joins the room
[23:59:03] <Andy> possibility that ICANN might charge IETF for running IANA
[23:59:40] <Andy> Leslie: speaking not as co-chair
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!