Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 102 BOF coordination interim-2018-iesg-11 2018-06-05 15:00
minutes-interim-2018-iesg-11-201806051500-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2018-06-05 15:00
Title Minutes IETF 102 BOF coordination interim-2018-iesg-11 2018-06-05 15:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-2018-iesg-11-201806051500-00
Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 102 
5 June 2018

Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat

Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki 
(https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/).

ATTENDEES 
---------------------------------
Adam Roach ART
Alissa Cooper GEN
Alvaro Retana RTG
Amy Vezza Secretariat
Ben Campbell ART
Benjamin Kaduk SEC
Brian Trammell IAB
Cindy Morgan Secretariat
Eric Rescorla SEC
Erik Nordmark IAB
Ignas Bagdonas OPS
Jari Arkko IAB
Karen O'Donoghue
Liz Flynn Secretariat
Mark Nottingham IAB
Martin Thomson IAB
Melinda Shore IAB
Mirja Kuehlewind TSV
Spencer Dawkins TSV
Stephanie McCammon Secretariat
Suresh Krishnan INT
Suzanne Woolf IAB
Ted Hardie IAB
Terry Manderson  INT
Warren Kumari OPS

REGRETS 
---------------------------------

Deborah Brungard RTG
Christian Huitema IAB
Allison Mankin IRTF
Alexey Melnikov ART
Gabriel Montengro IAB
Robert Sparks IAB
Jeff Tantsura IAB
Martin Vigoureux RTG


APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA

o Internationalization Review Procedures (I18NRP) Ð 1 of 1
  Responsible AD: Ben Campbell

Ben Campbell introduced the topic of the BoF and indicated that he 
thought the issue the BoF wanted to work on was needed, but he wasn't 
sure it would be useful.

Mark Nottingham added the conversation seems to be from the community 
that it was needed work.

Eric Rescorla questioned what a successful BoF would look like.

Mirja Kuehlewind thought that a directorate or an IAB Program might be 
a successful outcome.

Ted Hardie added that there had been an IAB program on internationalization, 
but that it had concluded after limited progress post-LUCID.

Ben summed up possible outcomes of the BoF. Either the BoF would find a new 
procedural way of doing the work, it would see the IETF couldn't do any work 
here, or it would be inconclusive.

Eric added using a BoF to brainstorm ideas it isn't a good use of time. The 
proponents should have a better plan before the BoF happens.

Alissa Cooper asked if this was about new substantive work or if it was about 
review. If it was about review there was no need for a BoF.

Spencer Dawkins asked if the IETF had ever had an internationalization 
directorate, or just the IAB program.  

Suzanne Woolf thought there had not been a directorate. 

Ben noted that a problem could be having an Internationalization Considerations 
section in documents and having no directorate to do reviews.

Suzanne noted that while there isn't a lack of people working in this space, 
there was a lack of people working on the architecture for it.

Spencer mentioned that a directorate is not something that has been tried in 
the past.

Ted mentioned that it would be difficult to say that the IETF tried and stopped 
work on this issue due to lack of interest.

Ben mentioned that IETF is a bottom up organization, and the work is done where 
people are interested to do the work. Other standards organizations that work 
top-down might fix the problem for the IETF if the IETF doesn't.

Alissa brought the discussion back to the BoF proposal and what the IAB and IESG 
thought about approval of the BoF. She indicated it could need more work, more 
documentation, more specific structure to the proposal before it is approved.

Adam wondered if asking the proponents for that might push the request to IETF 
103.

Ben mentioned if enough work was done in between the meetings, it might be a 
candidate for an IAB workshop.

Benjamin Kaduk added that asking for a more concrete proposal should have a 
quick deadline, so its not on a published agenda and then cancelled just before 
the meeting.

Eric agreed, and suggested one week.

Spencer wondered if one hour would be enough time.

Alissa thought it was reasonable.

The BoF was approved for IETF 102 provided the proponents of the BoF have a 
more concrete agenda. Ben and Adam will follow up with the proponents.

GENERAL AREA

o The label "RFC" (rfcplusplus) Ð 1 of 1
  Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper

Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed BoF.

Martin Thomson, as one of the BoF proponents, said that the general gist of 
the proposal was that people wanted to discuss the topic and he thought having 
such discussion would be useful. He asked if there were any concerns about 
having the BoF.

Adam Roach noted that the BoF needed very strong chairs because this is a 
hotly contested idea.

There was discussion amongst the IESG and the IAB about who could chair 
the session effectively and neutrally. A few names were put forward, and 
the IESG and IAB would follow up.

Many IESG and IAB members indicated they wanted to attend the session.

The BoF was approved for IETF 102 and Alissa will update the conflicts list.

INTERNET AREA

o Secure End to End Privacy Enabled Mapping System (ATICK) Ð 1 of 1
  Responsible AD: Terry Manderson, Suresh Krishnan

Terry Manderson indicated the proponents of the proposed BoF have done a lot 
of work since their first BoF in Prague. He mentioned he didn't think they 
were ready to be a WG-forming BoF at the moment, even if the BoF writeup 
indicated they wanted to be WG-forming.

Erik Nordmark mentioned he was expecting more substance from the write-up.

Spencer Dawkins added he was happy they had added privacy considerations, as 
they had not included them in the scope at their last meeting.

Terry also mentioned he thinks the agenda included in the BoF proposal would 
need revision.

Jari Arkko mentioned that he liked the idea, but found the documentation 
shallow.

Eric Rescorla asked if that would block having a BoF at this time.

Jari thought it was a solvable problem.

Suresh Krishnan was concerned that the problem statement guided to a set of 
predefined solutions. He would like the BoF to not be driven by one solution; 
it should build to something everyone wants instead of being guided by existing 
solutions that may not fit.

Melinda Shore added there was work going on in the IRTF in this space, but the 
people doing that work may not be able to attend IETF 102. 

Mirja Kuehlewind agreed it might be better as a research group, and added 
Allison Mankin was trying to form a RG with some of these issues and ideas.

Suresh added that the current proposal had a lot of guidance from Erik 
Nordmark and Jeff Tantsura, and could use some additional shepherding effort.

Erik Nordmark agreed and noted he could be more active by presenting and 
working on documents for them. Erik also suggested that the BoF be scoped 
to discussing privacy issues in mapping systems.

Terry questioned whether there would be enough time before IETF 102 to 
reframe the BoF proposal and submit some written documents with more substance.

Jari agreed with Erik and mentioned this work space is large and lots of 
people were looking at various pieces of possible work.

The BoF was not approved for IETF 102. Terry will follow up with the 
proponents and Erik will try to steer some part of it by writing a document.

OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREA

o DNS Resolver Identification and Use (DRIU) Ð 1 of 2
  Responsible AD: Warren Kumari

Warren Kumari introduced the proposed BoF and mentioned he thought it 
would be useful to hold the BoF. He mentioned both DPRIVE and DOH could 
use this work. He asked if there were any questions.

Benjamin Kaduk asked what a successful BoF would look like.

Warren answered that a successful outcome would be people agreeing that 
they were working on the same problem, and agreeing that it was a problem 
worth solving. If that outcome is successful, they may choose to charter 
a working group for the next IETF.

The BoF was approved for IETF 102.

o Autonomous Asynchronous Management Policy and Protocols (AAMPP) Ð 2 of 2
  Responsible AD: Ignas Bagdonas

Ignas Bagdonas introduced the proposed BoF, and noted it was a very 
specific use case. It includes additional problems intentionally left 
out of NETCONF and NETMOD for realistic transport encodings needed in 
the data center space, high rate of change environments. They want to 
make model-based manageability more useful.

Alissa Cooper asked if there was interest in the wider community.

Ignas admitted that most of the interest was outside the IETF community.

Eric Rescorla noted that having a community that does not want to work in 
the IETF being spoken for by others was not a useful model for getting 
any work done.

Mark Nottingham wondered if there was enough here for a BoF, and suggested 
a BarBoF be a fine first step.

Martin Thomson asked if there was a solution to the problem.

Ignas noted that it has a set of problems with non-specific requirements 
and parts of solutions.

Martin thought they might have a better meeting with specific requirements 
and a couple of sketches.

Alissa thought a side meeting or BarBoF should be their next step.

Spencer Dawkins mentioned he'd had the proponents in the DTN WG and they 
have already improved from where they were.

The BoF was not approved for IETF 102. Ignas will suggest a side meeting 
as the appropriate next step.

ROUTING AREA

NONE

SECURITY AREA

o Application Transport LAyer Security (ATLAS) Ð 1 of 1
  Responsible AD: Eric Rescorla

Eric Rescorla introduced the BoF and noted the topic was previously 
presented in DISPATCH. The proponents had some momentum before the London 
IETF, but did not manage to get a BoF proposal together for that meeting. 
Eric expressed some ambivalence and worried about follow through.

Martin Thomson asked if the proponents seem to want to do the work.

Eric admitted there was some cooling of interest.

Jari Arkko said he had read the mailing list before the London IETF meeting 
and it looked like there was interest for work in this space and work left 
to do, but wasn't sure the current people could effectively drive the work 
to completion.

Brian Trammell noted that the TLS handshake to establish a keying mechanism 
uses the same pattern. He wondered if there was need of working group to 
talk about generalizing this.

Eric asked Martin Thomson if he would be willing to shepherd the BoF to keep 
it on track.

Martin agreed.

Mirja asked if there was sufficient interest to hold a BoF and what the 
reception was in the DISPATCH WG when it was discussed there.

Eric admitted DISPATCH was lukewarm on the idea.

Martin said that a way forward would be to look at establishing a security 
association, using the TLS handshake to do it, using TLS as a service.

Eric mentioned he would prefer it not be so unresolved as a BoF and suggested 
a side meeting with Martin as an IAB shepherd to refine the ideas.

The BoF was not approved for IETF 102. The IESG will suggest a side meeting, 
with Martin Thomson to assist as IAB shepherd.

TRANSPORT AREA

NONE

IAB SESSIONS

NONE