Re: [arch-d] 2 questions (groups) to IAB

Colin Perkins <> Tue, 28 July 2020 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AB53A0CB3; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id npcC0sVTdQqL; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F9663A0CB1; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=RHC5OkFTR1WnZKf7u8E7HQr/QWrwHuZZCd/m/eDPV1s=; b=v7f3JLiHJMyEb22foR/SfShR7H Ys7PJIZwtwQWhEzvfVTY4V3PExzuqX4cGBnkM+fCUds4uDJOwAsNqfPFooLQSp1sUmGh7YWFTrMd7 ShLcwL9A4O6nx5zRlPhInlE+uC2XvF/L/0kgEgPjKGWrygvV79Yyo58evlit08/hilHGiPgDZQZp7 lzRoweTrFBGU9t+oWE4uWk/qR9zD8/I2QG9uRnTmcSOGeEvy3KL8gPeXuiciZugl8smBZ2HFPhFhE OVrMMXpXK244jNVVdOteQamYDHT2hvxN33iOGzIUhzv+VgtuxGNjflYuqsYXrk5BZ8/xAE+ElfWMF aVR017Hw==;
Received: from [] (port=44356 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1k0QM6-0002JA-FC; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:13:22 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\))
From: Colin Perkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:13:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] 2 questions (groups) to IAB
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:13:26 -0000

> On 28 Jul 2020, at 13:23, Toerless Eckert <> wrote:
> Dear IAB,
> Q1: Community discussion with IAB about their workshop/programs
> Could the IAB please present a short statement about how the IAB decides
> what workshops to run and when to start a new program? Would the IAB be                                
> open to receiving suggestions from the community, and how would those
> suggestions be handled?
> Q2: IAB and evolving IP
> IETF chair has declared in liaison 1677, that "IETF maintains copyright
> and change control for the IP specifications" and "extensions or modifications
> to IETF technologies must be discussed with the IETF before any are worked
> on in other SDOs". In addition, IAB is chartered with external liaison and
> architectural oversight. With this role, i would respectfully like to ask
> IAB about he following issue:
> There is interest from contributors working inside IETF as well as
> outside researchers and SDO such as ITU-T to investigate options for
> future IP/network layer packet/protocol evolution withing but also beyond
> those options that could naturally evolve from the considerations of RFC4775.
> This could be seen as similar to what was done 30 years ago in IP-NG through
> e.g.g: TUBA, TP/IX, CATNIP, IPAE, SIP, PIP and so on. Except that the
> requirements for such investigations are different from those in 1990th
> (IPv4 address space exhaustion). For example the networks to which the
> desired benefits might most apply would not necessarily have to be primarily
> the Internet.
> What is in the opinion of IAB the right place to do this work in the community,
> e.g., IAB workshop/program, IETF experimental WG, some other new org form ?
> How does IAB think it should be involved in such an effort ?
> Note: IRTF chair has already stated that he considers architecture investigation
> into generic network header encoding options as a pure engineering and therefore
> non-research topic and thinks it is unsuitable for an IRTF RG.
> I disagree, but that was his statement he made to me.

We had a single hallway conversation about this topic at the Singapore IETF 106 meeting. What I recall saying was that I thought the specific topic you raised was better suited to a longer-term engineering effort in IETF than to an IRTF research group, not that the broader topic was forever out of scope for IRTF. 


> Lastly: Where can i find the definition as to what packet protocol
> formats would or would not fall into the IETF chairs "IETF ... copyright
> and change control for the IP specifications" ?  E.g.: would any newly
> designed protocol be subject to IETF copyright claims if it can be
> made interoperable in some fashion with IPv4 or IPv6 ? Or is it just
> the naming aspect of "InternetworkProtocol" ? I do not understand
> the assessment criteria. 
> This question is quite important because without such definition,
> it is impossible to determine which proposed protocols Alissas liaison 1677
> ask against other SDO applies to.
> Thank you very much
>    Toerless Eckert
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list

Colin Perkins