Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 100 BOF coordination interim-2017-iesg-21 2017-10-05 14:00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2017-10-05 14:00
Title Minutes IETF 100 BOF coordination interim-2017-iesg-21 2017-10-05 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 100
5 October 2017

Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat

Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki

Jari Arkko / IAB
Alia Atlas / Routing Area
Ignas Bagdonas / Scribe
Deborah Brungard / Routing Area
Ben Campbell / Applications and Real-Time Area
Benoit Claise / Operations and Management Area
Alissa Cooper / IETF Chair, General Area
Spencer Dawkins / Transport Area
Mat Ford / ISOC
Ted Hardie / IAB Chair
Suresh Krishnan / Internet Area
Mirja Kuehlewind / Transport Area
Warren Kumari / Operations and Management Area
Terry Manderson / Internet Area
Stephanie McCammon / IETF Secretariat
Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area
Cindy Morgan / IETF Secretariat
Kathleen Moriarty / Security Area
Alexa Morris / IETF Secretariat
Erik Nordmark / IAB
Eric Rescorla / Security Area
Alvaro Retana / Routing Area
Adam Roach / Applications and Real-Time Area
Brian Trammell / IAB
Amy Vezza / IETF Secretariat
Suzanne Woolf / IAB


Susan Hares / Scribe
Joe Hildebrand / IAB
Lee Howard / IAB
Allison Mankin / IRTF Chair
Gabriel Montenegro / IAB
Mark Nottingham / IAB
Robert Sparks / IAB
Jeff Tantsura / IAB
Martin Thomson / IAB




o IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0 (IASA20)
  Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper

Alissa Cooper introduced the ongoing work of IASA20. She mentioned that the
design team was working on a document revision which she expected to form the
basis for the discussion at the Singapore IETF.

Ted Hardie noted that the relaxed pace might be detrimental.

Alissa agreed.

Jari Arkko added that the design team was a bit behind, as they wanted to have
the revised document in mid-September, but they werenÕt finished with
incorporating the comments.

The BoF was approved for IETF 100.




o Common Operation and Management on network Slicing (COMS)
  Responsible AD: Benoit Claise

Benoit Claise introduced the proposed COMS BoF. He noted that it grew out of
the NETSLICING BoF that met at IETF 99 in Prague. He mentioned that he wasnÕt
sure that the topic ready for another BoF, and would welcome input. He
suggested three possible ways forward: 1) Make the BoF Non-WG forming to
further discuss the issues 2) Make the BoF WG-Forming even though there is no
charter text or deliverables identified 3) Suggest a proposed research group in
this area instead.

Terry Manderson thought a research group might be useful for the group to
figure out what it needs to do.

Brian Trammell cautioned that the group would need the right mix of people to
be successful.

Benoit mentioned he was on the side of not holding the BoF in Singapore, to let
the proponents figure out what they really wanted to work on.

Jari Arkko thought a BoF would be useful, and was in favor of holding it.

Benoit noted that the OPS ADs had been trying to get them to focus, but it had
not happened yet. Spencer Dawkins mentioned that he thought they need to
identify maps and gaps and have more input from a shepherd than theyÕve had to

Warren Kumari said that they have tried to narrow the scope, but it hasnÕt
happened yet.

Alissa Cooper agreed that the group not having even a start on charter text was

Benoit asked if Jeff Tantsura and Jari would be available to help shepherd the
effort for a future IETF meeting, not Singapore.

Jari agreed to help. Jeff Tantsura was not on the call.

Benoit suggested they write the I-D themselves.

Jari asked if a document did get written on this subject was there an
appropriate group to review it.

Warren suggested the NETSLICING Mailing list, as well as OPSAWG. Network
slicing documents were already being discussed and any work could go into
existing WGs.

Jari agreed that if the subject could be discussed in an area meeting it would
do a lot to narrow the scope of the work.

The proposed BoF was not approved for IETF 100.


o IDentity Enabled Networks (IDEAS)
  Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

Alvaro Retana introduced the Proposed WG and mentioned he wanted the session to
be approved as the charter text was due to be approved at the next telechat. He
indicated there was a possibility the PWG would not be approved.

Erik Nordmark noted that they had some help with security issues, but he wasnÕt
sure the person was specific enough.

Brian Trammell noted that they were wrapped up in identity versus identifiers
and that needed the right person to help.

Spencer Dawkins agreed.

Jari Arkko mentioned that it was perhaps too late to focus on privacy. He
thought the issues were more fundamental, and they needed a discussion on the
assumptions and models behind the work in a BoF situation, not a brand new WG.

Alvaro noted he was happy with the level of dialog surrounding the issues that
had been identified.

Ted Hardie worried that the wider audience of a BoF might be too contentious,
and suggested that bar-BoF might be a better way to focus the topic for a
proposed working group.

Alia Atlas disagreed with that assessment, and thought it would be a mistake to
derail the effort completely.

Warren Kumari asked if there was a problem that needed solving.

Jari mentioned that this was more researched and well-formed than many other
possible BoFs proposed in recent memory, and perhaps that was part of the

Erik agreed that the group wandered into identity versus identifiers and became
mired there.

Alvaro requested that they defer the decision on whether to approve the BoF
until after the discussion of the PWG's charter at the next IESG telechat
(October 12, 2017).

o Data Center Routing (DCROUTING)
  Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

Alvaro Retana introduced the proposed BoF, noting that most of the discussion
had taken place in the IDR, ISIS, and RTGWG Working Groups. He also noted they
had a formal presentation at the last IETF, and many people seemed interested.
He noted that they always ran out of time for the discussion in the wider area
meetings and wanted to have dedicated time on the agenda to discuss it.

Suresh Krishnan noted there was no traffic on the mailing list.

Alvaro agreed and pointed to discussions on the IDR mailing list and the RTGWG
mailing list.

The BoF was approved for IETF 100.


o Firmware Update (FUD)
  Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty

Kathleen Moriarty introduced the proposed BoF. She noted that the proponents
had done a lot of work in preparation, and she thought theyÕd be ready to be a
working group after IETF 100.

Jari Arkko asked via email prior to the meeting if there are vendors involved,
and Kathleen replied that there are.

Kathleen was not able to access Jabber during the meeting, but Spencer Dawkins
noted that the discussion in the Jabber room was in favor of holding the BOF.
The BoF was approved for IETF 100.

o Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP)
  Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty

Kathleen Moriarty indicated the BoF was in good shape and the proponents had
done a lot of work after their last BoF. She noted sheÕd like to approve the
BoF for IETF 100.

Suresh Krishnan stated that there was an issue the last time this BoF was held
about work done outside the mailing list. He asked what was different from the
last time.

Kathleen noted there were a number of interested vendors and they could make it
clearer in the charter text how the work would be done on the protocol

The BoF was approved for IETF 100.