Minutes IETF102: lwig
minutes-102-lwig-00

Meeting Minutes Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (lwig) WG
Title Minutes IETF102: lwig
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2018-07-29

Meeting Minutes
minutes-102-lwig

   LWIG WG Meeting
IETF 102 - Montreal
Fairmont The Queen Elizabeth
Location: Duluth
Date:     Friday, July 20, 2018, 11:50 - 13:20
Chairs:   Zhen Cao, Mohit Sethi
AD:       Suresh Krishnan
Presentation materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/session/lwig

===============================================================================

Meetecho for remote participants: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf102/lwig/
Etherpad for notes:
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-102-lwig?useMonospaceFont=true

1.  Administrative and Agenda Bashing (Chairs, 10 min)
    Note Well, Note Takers, Jabber Scribes, Agenda Bashing

    Minute takers: Francesca

    Jabber Scribe: Rahul

    Mohit announces 2 RFC being published (8387, 8352)

    Slight change to agenda,: 4 won't be presented

2.  Rahul: Neighbor Management Policy for 6LoWPAN  (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-nbr-mgmt-policy

    Rahul presenting the slides
    Mohit (no hat): think this is a very useful doc. Please note this is an
    informational. Rahul : section in the draft "if you want to do neighbor
    mgt, these are the things you will need"

3.  Carlos: TCP Usage Guidance in the Internet of Things (IoT) (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks

    Presenting the status and updates to the draft

    Rahul: I think the information on socket interface in OpenWSN in red is
    incorrect; BSD-style socket interface is not possible

    Carlos: Ok, we will check

    Markku: Thank you for doing this, useful work. Needs to be more specific
    regarding turning off Delay ACKs (global, per interface, ...). Another
    example is ECN, the current description of the RTO behavior is not correct.
    Will do a full review

    Carlos: Thanks. About the delay technology, we already have some text

    Markku: still need to be more specific

    Mohit (no hat): Could you post this draft ?

    Carlos: yes

    Zhen: could be good to have the discussion in lwig and tcp wg

    Carlos: I think we had the discussion and we would have the last call in
    both working groups

   Rahul: Is any of these stacks already supporting ECN?
   Carlos: No, not yet.

4.  Carsten: Virtual reassembly buffers in 6LoWPAN (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly

    not presented

5.  Olaf: CoAP Implementation Guidance (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-coap-06

    Olaf (remote) presenting the update to the draft

    Carsten: as a co-author question for the wg, do people perceive a rush to
    get this published? In CoRE we had a doc like this who waited 5 years to
    get published. Same here or not? Matthias: also as co-author, no reviews
    coming in. before wglc I feel like reviews don't happen Mohit (no hat):
    good idea but need an editor to make sure that someone brings in all the
    comments Carsten: maybe Matthias is right

    Zhen: lack of review is ?? . (missed it)
    Matthias: plugtest: we got something from F-interop. some issues that makes
    sense to document, others maybe not

    Hannes: chairs maybe should organize interop on features including CoAP
    over TCP, which could be fed into this doc. Comments we see is
    clarifications people want

    Mohit: we can talk to CoRE chair and organise something
    Carsten: we should talk to F-Interop
    Hannes: I think F-Interop have a different goal, come up with an automated
    test.we don't need that in the first place Mohit: some interop is better
    than not any. Carsten: need to do more of those. Nice thing of interop is
    people are sitting together and talk to each other. Maybe organizing
    something in Prague time frame would be good Mohit: sounds good

6.  Carsten/Ari: Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-7228bis-03

    Carsten presenting the slides

    Hannes: (J-group classes slides) (...) Virtualization imo it provides
    another layer of protection. enhance security capabilities.

    Carsten: would like to get feedback from the wg

    Hannes: are you planning to talk about requirements (devices)? won't need
    to be super accurate, but give a rough idea

    Carsten: good idea start collecting expected burdens for classes, that
    would fit very well with this document

7.  Daniel: Minimal ESP (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-lwig-minimal-esp-06

    Daniel presenting the slides

    How many people have read this doc? ~10

    in favor of adopting: some hum

    against: no hum

    Rene: did you fix the algorithm option?

    Daniel: no, we described how to select an algorithm

8.  Rene: Alternative Curve Representations (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-struik-lwig-curve-representations-00

    Rene presenting the slides

    Carsten: question to your last question: yes. It is really hard to do
    crypto on small devices.

    Sean Turner: section 5 is the most interesting section. CURDLE is looking
    at curves and deprecating and having new things. Think about that. Second
    point: this is mostly about the identifiers, the chip already has the code.

    Rene: as an implementer you could take a curve and do a very simple
    conversion

    Sean: trying to understand the driving motivation for this

    Rene: if you have a small device and you implement ECDSA and Ed-25519 (...)
    in 6lo they have may options to do things and not all devices speak all
    languages

    Carsten: real example one P-256 and Ed25519, you have to have both

    Anybody objecting to this becoming a wg doc?

    Daniel: as co-chair of CURDLE, I am fine if you ask for review in Curdle,
    you would do that very fast, since the wg is not very active

    Rene: what is the output of Curdle?

    Daniel: deprecating and providing points for new alg. But this would be
    just for the review.

    Hum for adoption: hum for adoption, no hum for no adoption

9.  Francesca: Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols (10 min)
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-01