Subject: Report to the Community from the IAB

From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:12:59 -0700

First, I am again happy to note that there were no appeals received by 
the IAB at the time of writing.

In our last report, the IAB noted that it was in the process of 
selecting a new liaison to the ICANN Board.  Harald Alvestrand was 
selected by the portion of the IAB not recused, and he and Jonne 
Soininen are currently sharing information as they run up to the 
change-over together.  The IAB has re-appointed Jim Reid to the position 
of Root Zone Evolution Review Committee liaison. We thank each of them, 
as well as the other volunteers, for their willingness to serve.

Under the terms of RFC 6635, the IAB recently called for volunteers to 
serve on the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) and there were a 
gratifyingly large number of volunteers 
<https://www.iab.org/2018/07/02/feedback-requested-on-candidates-for-rfc-series-oversight-committee-rsoc/>. 
  If you have opinions, information, or perspectives on the individuals 
for the RSOC which you believe would help the IAB select the RSOC 
membership, please provide comments to [email-masked] and 
[email-masked]. Please provide feedback before 26 July 2018.

You can always find the documents the IAB has adopted and is working on 
athttps://datatracker.ietf.org/stream/iab 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/stream/iab>.  Three new documents may be 
of interest:

draft-iab-path-signals, which explores the impact of encryption on the 
availability of network signals to on-path devices and documents ways 
forward for desirable signals;

draft-iab-protocol-maintenance, which describes the harmful impact of 
Jon Postel’s robustness principle when poorly applied;

draft-trammell-wire-image, which describes the characteristic 
information available to an on-path observer of a protocol exchange 
beyond that which might be inherent in the protocol specification.

In addition to these, the IAB published a short updated statement on the 
RPKI 
<https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2018-2/iab-statement-on-the-rpki/>, 
noting that operational experience on the use of a single trust anchor 
had not matched the original advice and that the IAB believes the system 
can function with multiple trust anchors.

At the upcoming IETF, the IAB is hosting a number of meetings related to 
its liaison function.   The first of these is a meeting hosted by the 
IAB for all of the liaisons currently provided by the IETF to ICANN 
functions.  Over time, the number of ICANN relationships has grown 
considerably <https://www.ietf.org/about/liaisons/>, and the IAB 
believes that it would be valuable to increase the coordination among 
the liaisons to RSSAC, the TLG, RZERC, the newly constituted group on 
the deployment of IDNs in the root zone, and the ICANN NomCom.  This 
meeting will be the first step in improving that coordination, and the 
first of the liaison cluster approach mentioned in the IAB’s most recent 
report.

The second of these meetings will be with members of the RSSAC, to 
review and discuss their recent document "A Proposed Governance Model 
for the DNS Root Server System". 
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf>This 
describes the IAB as a key stakeholder in the Root Server System and 
bases key principles on IAB technical statements or RFCs; as a result, 
we would like to ensure that the two groups are well aligned in the 
aspects of this governance model which touch on the IETF and the IAB. 
The third of these is with several of the groups which interface with 
the ITU.

At the time of this writing, the IAB is working on a response to the 
recent NTIA notice of inquiry on International Internet Policy 
Priorities, focusing especially on its inquiry related to IANA. 
  Separately, the IAB is considering a new program focused on the 
architectural implications of asymmetry and consolidation.

The IAB welcomes comments either at [email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]>, which is a public discussion 
list, or at [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>, where the topic should go 
just to the IAB.

Respectfully submitted,

Ted Hardie

for the IAB