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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 28 July 2020 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C49D3A0BF8 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d7gy1xHlQ9FR for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3F393A0BCE for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3438548048; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 9988F440043; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:23:24 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: iab@iab.org
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200728122324.GE1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/owZhw91S3LNVt5K-nN8aygaI8tQ>
Subject: [arch-d] 2 questions (groups) to IAB
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:23:37 -0000

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.

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