Minutes for CDNI at IETF-95
minutes-95-cdni-2

CDNI Working Group Minutes
IETF-95, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Chaired by Francois Le Faucheur, and Ray and Brandenburg (on behalf of Kevin
Ma) - Meeting notes captured by Kent Leung and Francois Le Faucheur, edited by
Francois Le Faucheur - Audio Recording at:
https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf95/ietf95-atlanticob-20160407-1400.mp3 - Slides
accessible at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/cdni.html

Thursday, April 7, 2016, 14:00-16:00, Room Atlantico B
=======================================================
- about 50 people in the room, plus 8 on MeetEcho (including co-chair Kevin Ma)

Introduction and Agenda (WG chairs)
---------------------------------------------------------------
- Introduction by the WG chairs, and Note Well statement.
- Change in WG personnel:
        * change in Assigned Area Director: Alexey Melnikov replacing Barry
        Leiba. * Thanks expressed to Barry Leiba on behalf of CDNI WG as well
        as ICE WG
- Agenda review, no request to change agenda
- RFC published since previous IETF meeting : RFC 7736: CDNI Media Type
Registration (Informational) - Document Update and progress against the charter
milestones
        * cdni-logging: still in “IESG Review.” All DISCUSSes cleared.
        * cdni-metadata: Ready for WG Last Call?
        * cdni-redirection: under “IESG Review”. Comments being addressed.
        * cdni-control-triggers: under “IESG Review”. Comments being addressed.
        * cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics: Semantics under “IESG Review”.
        Comments being addressed. * cdni-uri-signing:
                o WG document on URI signing: Ready for WG Last Call?
                o URI signing for HAS: IPR update
- Documents beyond the charter:
        * CDNI handling of HTTPS Delegation: new rev reflecting Yokohama
        discussions.

CDNI Logging, draft-ietf-cdni-logging-24: Francois Le Faucheur
---------------------------------------------------------------
- Remaining ABNF corrections included (with help from Pete Resnik)
- See slides:
        o clarifications regarding c-groupid mapping and implementation
        requirement level (MAY) o resolved comments from Alissa Cooper (as
        discussed on mailing list)
- ready for publication

CDNI Metadata, draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-12: Kevin Ma
------------------------------------------------------------
- See slides:
        o updates and changes since last rev
        o one open question regarding removing “.v1” or not , but no comment
        either way from the room.
- Chair/Francois proposes that document moves to WG Last Call and asks if
anyone objects. No-one objects. - Chair/Francois recommends a WG Chair review
be conducted at the same time.

FCI Semantics : Kevin Ma
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 4 revs since last IETF meeting
- See slides for changes
- Rev -12 was submitted to IESG review
- all IESG comments today have been addressed
- will work on upcoming IESG comments
- Chair/Francois asks about I-Ds for actual FCI interfaces. Kevin indicates
that Kevin and Jan will provide new rev for IETF-96

Routing Request Redirection for CDN Interconnection,
draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-17: Ray van Brandenburg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 4 new revs since last IETF
- See slides for changes
- was submitted to IESG review
- currently addressing IESG review comments, will continue to do so as comments
come - Several IESG comments about privacy concerns around cdni-redirection -
Kevin Ma: change the tone of document but allow all info to be set in doc, the
info does not need to be encrypted (heavy) given TLS is used - Francois: Talk
about tradeoff of privacy vs. info, even with TLS; should the dCDN get all the
info? - Kevin Ma: The info may not be stored, used in memory, maybe a note on
this info is in transit - Ray: issue is given the info to a 3rd party -
Francois: not sure if that's the issue; need to understand the specific concern
for RRI in order to be able to address them - Sanjay Mishra : is the
fundamental concern about the fact that uCDN redirects the request to dCDN?
Ray/Francois answered (concern is not redirection itself which is inherent to
CDNI model, but concern is uCDN asking dCDN and providing a lot of info, so
dCDN can respond pointing request to a specific surrogate) - Kent: is the
concern when Client IP for first request may be different than client IP for
fetching content from surrogate - Ray/Francois: no, not that - AD/Alexei: How
about having a chat with security reviewer ? - Chair/Francois: Can we deal with
this privacy IESG concern the same way we dealt with it for cdni-logging,
because that was very effective? this involved a mini-Design-Team with CDNI
authors as well as two designated privacy/security experts. - AD/Alexey: Please
send me some background and I will work with privacy/security experts to set up
the same approach - Chair/Francois: I will send all details

CDNI Control Interface, draft-ietf-cdni-triggers-12: Rob Murray
-------------------------------------------------------
- 3 new revs since last IETF- See slides for changes
- Rob will include the latest minor tweak in TLS text from cdni-logging
- started addressing some IESG review comments
- exAD/Barry Leiba: general comments:
        o respond to IESG comments quickly, either thanking them or inform them
        that you’ll respond later o For DISCUSSes: need to engage AD and
        discuss, not go back and change draft only o No response to Ben's
        comment, and to Alissa’s comments o Barry’s “Yes” position will
        disappear (since he is no longer AD) o Alexey will review for one
        additional position o note that there are 3 CDNI docs in IESG, so a lot
        of work in the pipe for ADs

CDNI URI Signing, draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-07: Kent Leung
-------------------------------------------------------------
- 2 versions since last IETF
- See slides for changes
- Specific provisions for privacy (encryption of IP address/prefix)
- Leif Hedstrom conducted expert review. His comments will be addressed in next
rev. - Leif Hedstrom: Apple is developing an implementation of the uri-signing
spec. Target is to make it available in Apache Traffic Server (tentatively in
May 2016). - Ray and Brandenburg: planning to also have an implementation of
the uri-signing spec within 6 weeks - Next steps:
        o Address WG comment on path method for URI Signing
        o Address Brian Weis's review comments
        o Address Ray's implementation feedback
        o Address Leif's implementation feedback
- Chair/Francois: after these steps document will be ready for WG Last Call.
Does anybody object to issuing WGLC then (tentatively in 2nd half of May)?
no-one objects. - Leif and Phil agreed to review draft in WGLC

URI Signing for HAS draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has-02: Ray van
Brandenburg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- History: At Dallas IETF meeting, WG decided to remove segment-specific
extensions from uri-signing WGI document because of KPN IPR statement.
Segment-specific extensions were re-published as
draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has. - MPEG remains interested in a
solution that is compatible with CDNI URI Signing        o Latest liaison
(March 8) at https://datatracker.ieL.org/liaison/1464/- Several new versions of
draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has- Ray had discussions with KPN about
IPR terms - See slide: KPN is proposing some potential alternative IPR terms
and ask whether the CDNI WG would consider re-incorporating the
segment-specific extensions into the WG document with such IPR terms. -
exAD/Barry: has the actual IPT statement to IETF been updated with these new
proposed terms? - Ray: no it has not been updated yet. - exAD/Barry: an IETF WG
should not be involved in negotiating IPR terms (proposed new IPR terms).
Please update the IPR statement, then WG can decide what is the next step -
Alexey : Clarify that IPR is for draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has
only, not main URI Signing draft, so the IPR should also be updated in terms of
the related document - Chair/Francois: no decision can be made today, but
when/if IPR is updated, then we can discuss on the mailing list

HTTPS and delegation of encrypted traffic,
draft-fieau-https-delivery-delegation-02: Frederic Fieau
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Latest changes:
        o Added a section on HTTPS delivery delegation requirements
        o Rephrased HTTPS section
        o Added a section on a Lurk interface in CDNI
- See slides for details on changes
- Ray: Should draft go to LURK BOF (if it becomes a WG)
- Sanjay: LURK is only a BOF (no decision to turn into a WG yet), another BOF
is coming - Frederic: some work needed in CDNI as it is CDNI specific -
Francois: track what things are needed in CDNI in document, but main work
should be in LURK (if/when created) - Barry: the only use case being considered
in LURK BOF is CDN - ? : there may be other use cases - Sanjay: why the work
should not be here? - Francois: the technical details of delegation should be
handled in LURK, this WG should be a consumer of the LURK solution (e.g.
defining how it affects CDNI interfaces e.g. metadata interface/FCI can support
LURK parameters needed for CDNI) - Kevin Ma: I agree with Francois - Barry:
CDNI people should actively participate in LURK - Francois: Frederic and Kevin
are involved already in LURK - Thomas Fossati: dCDN needs certificate from
CP/uCDN to authenticate

Closing Remarks
---------------
- AD/Alexey: We want to close the CDNI documents already under IESG review
before submitting more to IESG review.

Meeting closes--------------