Minutes of Technical Policy Committee - 13 December 2007

Present:

Jamie Baddeley (Chair), Stewart Fleming, Sam Sargeant, Peter Macaulay, Jonny Martin, Hamish MacEwan, Frank March

In attendance:

Keith Davidson, Campbell Gardiner, Simon Riley

Opened: 3.07pm

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

2. Minutes of Last Meeting (18 October 2007)

Simon noted that the Best Practice minute for the last meeting needs to be amended. As below:

A panel will award travel grants (valued up to a maximum of $2500) for the top four successful authors of Best Practice statements each year. The travel will be earmarked for international travel to technical-related conferences.

Additionally, Best Practice drafts are to be floated on NZNOG for open debate, to achieve consensus.

AP – Staff to amend minutes of 18 October 2007.

AP – Staff to work with Simon and Jamie on formulating InternetNZ Best Practice presentation material for the upcoming NZNOG conference.

3. Action Points / Matters arising from the Previous Minutes

Re: Identify experts that could be contracted to scope an NZCERT:

Several names, including Daniel Ayers, Brendon Murray, Peter Guttmann, Mike Harmon, Peter Benson and Colin Jackson were suggested as potential expert members of an advisory group or tiger team that could assist in scoping. Having someone from the academic community is important, and, additionally, it was suggested a consulting firm like Amos Aked Swift could be involved.

3.21pm – Michael Wallmannsberger joined the meeting.

Discussion on the importance of the NZCERT project and the extent, shape and form of scoping. The point of scoping, for instance, is to convince Government that a national CERT is necessary.

Two options for moving forward were considered.  Option one: engage a contractor to produce an initial scoping document to be delivered by 31 March 2008, and conduct a larger scoping exercise later on. Option two: hold fire and look to engage a security expert (Colin Jackson was suggested) to produce a more substantial report.

It was agreed that, at the very least, we have to spend money to decide whether there a problem that needs focussing on. And, if there is a problem, how important is it for InternetNZ to try and fix.

It was suggested that, instead of forming an advisory or working group, we first secure the services of a competent consultant who could canvas views for a ‘first cut report’ – similar to Liverton’s CA report.

It was also noted that NZCERT is not something that InternetNZ needs to create from scratch. It is a massive exercise and the involvement of Government is crucial. It should not be rushed into.

AP – Keith to gauge Colin Jackson’s interest in NZCERT scoping.

AP – Staff to establish a mailing list of people in Tech-Pol who want to be involved in NZCERT.

4. Honeypot

This item will be covered in-depth at the 14 December 2007 Council meeting, with Peter Komisarczuk from Victoria University giving an update.

5. IPv6

Jamie reiterated that the IPv6 event in 2008 must not be confined to propeller heads and techies. The business sector, through Enterprise New Zealand, must also be engaged as IPv6 migration has huge implications for all NZ organisations.

Keith noted that there is budget available to secure an international keynote speaker who would attract those from the business sector.

It was noted that if the IPv6 event is to be successful then it must be a joint event with TUANZ. Keith says he has spoken with Ernie several times and TUANZ is ‘on the same page’. Additionally, it was suggested that an After 5s series of events would be a good way to get people warmed up for the main IPv6 event. 

3.49pm – Frank March joined the meeting.

When IPv4 exhaustion occurs, New Zealand needs to be ready. Discussion followed on how to get business people and CIOs engaged with the IPv6 event and IPv6 issues generally.

3.53pm – Peter Macaulay joined the meeting.

The importance of the migration to IPv6 can’t be underestimated, given the pending exhaustion of IPv4. How, for instance, can people be compelled to move to IPv6 when many of those who run major networks don’t fully understand the issues.

Simon suggested InternetNZ take a more strategic view of IPv6. Our responsibility is not just about hosting an event next August. We need to widen the conversation with, for example, network integration businesses; making them aware of the IPv4 depletion date.

InternetNZ’s objective re: IPv6 therefore should be on educating and enthusing the industry, by, for example, thinking about an IPv6 roadmap and presenting good quality information that is rational and fact-based and can be made public.

It is important to let New Zealand businesses know about the consequences of not migrating to IPv6. I.e. if you’re not IPv6 capable you may not be able to do international business e.g. US Department of Defence. Also, Frank noted that if the NZ Government doesn’t lead on IPv6 it won’t happen.

Keith says planning for the IPv6 event next August is going well. But we need to start getting names allocated to dates fairly quickly.

AP – Jamie to forward list of network integrator contacts to Keith.

AP – Keith to begin conversations re: IPv6 with network integrators.

6. NZNOG

The NZNOG conference programme is now available online at http://conference.nznog.org/. The NZNOG organising committee is offering fellowships to some for conference attendance.

InternetNZ is sourcing five ex-.nz DNS servers. One of these is for the use of the NOG (for hosting their website) and may be up and running in February 2008.

Keith Davidson left the meeting at 4.11pm.

7. Certificate Authority

Michael believes Liverton’s draft CA report is useful in crystallising the thinking around the opportunity for establishing a CA, but it makes no mention of a range of important issues such as potential establishment costs, revenue models etc.

4.13pm – Nick Griffin joined the meeting.

Nick spoke to Liverton’s draft CA scoping report, saying it doesn’t measure up to the statement of work.

Discussion followed on the failings of the draft report, especially in respect of any CA relationship with the SRS.

It was agreed the draft report is substandard. It doesn’t give enough information and doesn’t look like 80 hours worth of work. More details are needed on cost structures, and quantification of the market opportunity. Also need to know what the build once cost is. It was, however, also noted that this is a draft report and that the SSC is yet to come back with their comments.

AP – Michael to provide staff with a note re: technical feedback to be provided back to Liverton.

8. Peering

There has been a lacklustre response to the peering report via the peering blog. However, TelstraClear have formally responded, and responses are also anticipated from Vodafone and the TCF.

Keith and Murray Milner met with the TCF last Friday to see if they wish to respond to the peering report. They are being given some flexibility in responding, given the deadline for responses has passed. The expectation is that the TCF won’t comment adversely.

9. NZCERT

See Item 3.

10. NZ Computer Crime & Security Project Funding

Keith and Jamie to speak with Spike Quinn at the upcoming NZNOG conference.

11. Broadband Measurement

The Commerce Commission has contracted Epitiro for broadband measurement, but Epitiro doesn’t measure key metrics such as jitter. Don Stokes was contracted to take a technical look at ComCom’s measurement.

Keith has reinitiated discussions with Consumer around measuring ISP performance and giving ratings, etc and sought approval to kick off discussions with other parties such as WAND to see who else is interested in the project. It was agreed that Keith would keep talking to Consumer and WAND and to report back in due course.

Discussion on what InternetNZ wants to achieve from the broadband measurement project. I.e. do we focus on consumer broadband measurement or industry-focussed measurement? Another option is taking a ‘helicopter view,’ encompassing the overall health of the Internet in New Zealand. This would measure, for instance, congestion points and total aggregate traffic flows.

Discussion on the aims of broadband measurement; would it result in giving consumers an informed choice about broadband and/or and raising the overall performance of the industry? And whether the ComCom/Epitiro will achieve this.

12. APRICOT 2008 attendance

APRICOT budget is $15,000 and is reserved for technical people to attend the event. Discussion followed on the nature of this budget item and where it fits in the context of other InternetNZ travel budgets.

The event is being held in Taiwan next February. Jonny and Sam have expressed an interest in attending.

AP – Michael to move at 14 December 2007 Council meeting that Jonny and Sam attend APRICOT 2008.

13. OOXML (re: establishing a mailing list)

Colin Jackson dialled in at 4.36pm.

Colin gave a background to the OOXML project and the OOXML technical advisory group. He recommended setting up an OOXML mailing list; the membership of which will be given a user ID and password to website.  Michael asked if Colin would be the steward of that access; Colin agreed that he would.

AP – Staff to set up an OOXML mailing list.

AP – Colin and Jamie to invite those on Members and Tech-Pol lists respectively to join the OOXML list.

14. General Business

Brief discussion on the interoperability / testing laboratory project, which is on the agenda for the 14 December 2007 Council meeting.

Keith talked to the ENUM project. The TCF has asked that the ENUM policy development group be deferred until Q4 2008, which Keith has reluctantly agreed to. Additionally, Keith is to meet Paul Clarkin from WorldxChange early next year to talk about carrier ENUM issues.

Closed: 5.18pm

Date of next meeting: TBC

Signed as a true and correct record:

---------------------------------------------

Jamie Baddeley, Chair

Action Points Register as at: 13 December 2007