Minutes IETF109: teep
minutes-109-teep-00

IETF 109 TEEP
Wednesday Nov. 18, 2020 Session II

Chairs: Nancy Cam-Winget, Tiru Reddy

Note takers: Tiru Reddy

    Agenda bashing, Logistics

Nancy will schedule TEEP interim soon to resolve dependencies with TEEP
protocol.

    Architecture – Dave Thaler
    • Draft: draft-ietf-teep-architecture
    • Issues: https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture/issues

Brendan agreed with PR#215 change (remove parapraph related to security domain).
Dave: GSMA and OTrP specs are domain-specific, they are already a deployed
protocol and no incentive to switch. It looks a lot like TEEP architecture.
TEEP has more extensibility and its need to be discussed in the presense of
ortp. Hannes: no need to discuss the prior domain-specific work in ortp.

    TEEP over HTTP update – Dave Thaler
    • Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http/
    • Issues: https://github.com/ietf-teep/otrp-over-http/issues

    Hackathon Report – Akira Tsukamoto

Akira presented hackathon report.

    TEEP Protocol – Dave Thaler (25 min)
    • Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-protocol/
    • Issues: https://github.com/ietf-teep/teep-protocol/issues

Dave: Is token needed for install/delete or can we rely on SUIT report?
Hannes: The need to associate a request to response because of multiple TEEP
Agents. Dave to have a follow-up discussion in SUIT WG. Cipher suites (1 and 2)
+1 for both on TAM, and (2) mandatory to challenged entity. 2 is suitable for
constrained devices. Actually, both are useful for constrained devices but 2 is
frequently implemented in hardware. Conclusion not to use TEEP specific claims.

Ben suggested to go with a side meeting in the RATS slot.