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

> On 28 Jul 2020, at 13:23, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> 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. 

Colin

> 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
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/