Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 103 BOF coordination interim-2018-iesg-19 2018-09-26 14:00
minutes-interim-2018-iesg-19-201809261400-00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2018-09-26 14:00
Title Minutes IETF 103 BOF coordination interim-2018-iesg-19 2018-09-26 14:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

minutes-interim-2018-iesg-19-201809261400-00
Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 103 
26 September 2018

Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat
Revised with notes from: Spencer Dawkins

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

ATTENDEES 
--------------------------------- 
Alexey Melnikov ART
Alissa Cooper GEN
Amy Vezza Secretariat
Ben Campbell ART
Benjamin Kaduk SEC
Brian Trammell IAB
Cindy Morgan Secretariat
Deborah Brungard RTG
Eric Rescorla SEC
Erik Nordmark IAB
Ignas Bagdonas OPS
Jari Arkko IAB
Jeff Tantsura IAB
Liz Flynn Secretariat
Mark Nottingham IAB
Martin Thomson IAB 
Martin Vigoureux RTG 
Melinda Shore IAB
Robert Sparks IAB
Spencer Dawkins TSV
Suresh Krishnan INT
Suzanne Woolf IAB
Ted Hardie IAB
Warren Kumari OPS

REGRETS 
---------------------------------
Adam Roach ART 
Allison Mankin IRTF
Alvaro Retana RTG
Christian Huitema IAB
Gabriel Montengro IAB
Mirja Kuehlewind TSV 
Karen O'Donoghue
Terry Manderson INT

APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA

NONE

GENERAL AREA

o WGs Using GitHub (WUGH) - 1 of 2
 Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper

Alissa Cooper introduced the WUGH BoF, and spoke on the history of the use 
of GitHub, and other third party tools in use in IETF Working Groups. She 
mentioned a document that mapped a proposed incremental support of GitHub. 
She stated there wasn't much traffic on the list, and this may not be as
controversial a subject as first thought.

Benjamin Kaduk said that the idea looked fine, but wondered about the way to 
prioritize the Tools Team's time. He would prioritize GitHub's integration 
with the Datatracker as a fairly low priority.

Eric Rescorla indicated general support for the proposed BoF. He also 
mentioned it might need to expand in scope.

Robert Sparks added that the BoF would be useful and that speaking as a 
Tools Team member, there wasn't a lot of requirements for the Team, and the 
changes to the Datatracker seemed to be minimal.

Spencer Dawkins spoke about possible general confusion of understanding
about the use of GitHub in working groups at the trailing edge of adoption
in the wider IETF community, and suggested that the BoF may help working
groups that are not moving forward to adopt GitHub yet, to understand its
use.

Martin Thomson mentioned there was probably a good understanding amongst WG 
Chairs, as there was a WG Chairs lunch that spoke to best practices and 
GitHub. He was more concerned about the scope of the change, and how much 
support to provide users. He mentioned the incremental changes indicated in 
the document Alissa mentioned seemed a reasonable first step, and that 
expansion from there would be beneficial. 

Melinda Shore indicated there was benefit in having a document source 
readily available to multiple people, but she also had concerns about non-
IETF resources hosting IETF work. 

Alissa mentioned the conflict list might need expanding, but she felt the 
BoF should be approved. She said she would work with the BoF Chair on an 
agenda.

The WUGH BoF was approved for IETF 103.

GENERAL AREA
o Removing Offensive Terminology in RFCs (ROT-RFC) - 2 of 2
 Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper

Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed ROT-RFC BoF. She mentioned there was a 
long thread of discussion on the HRPC mailing list, as well as a thread on 
the IETF discussion list. She also mentioned that there was no document on 
the topic, and this might be too early in the process to hold a BoF. 
However, she said that it would be good to encourage a side meeting to 
facilitate discussion.

Ted Hardie encouraged the side meeting idea and cautioned that it would be 
better if the group focused on wording for future I-Ds and RFCs, and not 
removing language from past RFCs. He suggested that a neutral party to lead 
the discussion might make for a more successful meeting.

Eric Rescorla disagreed about the IESG suggesting someone to lead the 
discussion.

Ted mentioned that he would be willing to offer friendly advice as an 
individual if the IESG wanted. He also mentioned he thought helping to 
facilitate success would be beneficial.  

Jari Arkko agreed with Ted but cautioned that this topic should be focused 
on new technology and words rather than existing technology. If reasonable 
specifications using a set of reasonable terms to use in the future are 
proposed it would be a good thing. He mentioned it isn't clear if it can be 
done, but that does not block trying to do it. 

Spencer Dawkins mentioned that this effort might benefit from a BoF shepherd 
to be in the room during the discussion.

Alissa said she hesitated to ask that at this point in the process for the 
perception of official-ness it might provoke.

Spencer agreed, but mentioned that the side might end badly if nobody in
IETF leadership helped to guide the in-person conversation, given the
disconnect on this subject during discussions on the IETF Discussion
mailing list.

Jari mentioned that it was unclear if there were a qualified group to do the 
work. He said that putting people together in the room might be more 
appropriate than suggesting a BoF Shepherd.

Melinda Shore brought up that this was mostly being discussed in the IRTF 
and might not have a lot of IETF participants involved. She noted that 
getting more of the IETF community involved might help it be more 
successful.

Alissa noted that even a side meeting would likely get regular IETFers 
interested. She also mentioned that she would like to see more cultural 
diversity included in participation. She noted that offensive language is 
not universal across cultures, and cultural diversity would help to get 
better understanding of what is offensive. She thought the next step would 
be to pair the proponents up with knowledgeable people. 

The ROT-RFC BoF was not approved for IETF 103. A side meeting would be 
encouraged.

INTERNET AREA

NONE

OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREA

NONE

ROUTING AREA

NONE

SECURITY AREA

o Handling IPsec Configurations in Large Scale SD-WAN Deployment with 
Constrained Resources (SDWAN-SEC) - 1 of 2
 Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk or/and Eric Rescorla


Eric Rescorla introduced the SDWAN-SEC BoF effort and added that the subject 
was recently presented at IPSECME. He wasn't sure the current work in the 
subject was ready for a BoF, but they may benefit from a side meeting.

Jeff Tantsura agreed.

Erik Nordmark noted if the mailing list didn't have much traffic maybe there 
wasn't sufficient interest in the subject. He added that he wasn't sure they 
had an effective problem statement.

Melinda Shore added she thought there might be a market demand for this type 
of mesh VPN technology but she hadn't seen active participants in this space 
contributing on the mailing list, which she found puzzling.

Jeff noted he wasn't particular whether it was  BoF or side meeting, but 
that getting together to discuss the issues would be beneficial.

Melinda said that there is a market demand for this sort 
of thing for large scale mesh vpns. 

Suresh Krishnan thought the technology was related to I2NSF, and perhaps a 
discussion within that WG meeting would be beneficial.

Alissa Cooper agreed. She also noted some of the people working in this 
space were not aware of the BoF request. She added that the scope was 
unclear, and the description of the BoF only mentioned SDWAN, but the 
possible solutions proposed are also applicable elsewhere. Clarification 
would be useful.

Benjamin Kaduk said that he would support encouraging a side meeting, and 
also to make relevant people more aware of the discussion.

Erik supported the idea of a side meeting, but noted that the proponents 
needed to do some preparatory work for a meeting to be successful. 

Eric summed up the discussion and would suggest a side meeting to the 
proponents and would reach out to possible key participants. 

The SDWAN-SEC BoF was not approved for IETF 103. A side meeting would be 
encouraged.

SECURITY AREA

o Remote ATtestation ProcedureS (RATS) - 2 of 2
 Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk

Benjamin Kaduk introduced the RATS BoF effort. He noted that the description 
was rather long, and he wasn't sure the BoF would be successful, or what 
success would look like, but he supported giving the proponents a BoF to 
facilitate discussion.

Eric Rescorla agreed.

Erik Nordmark mentioned he had attended a side meeting at the last IETF 
meeting and would support holding a BoF.

Melinda Shore cautioned that the scope of the charter would need a lot of 
work to focus the scope. She also supported holding the BoF.

Erik agreed the scope needed narrowing to scale down to something 
achievable. 

Benjamin expressed concern about making sure the BoF is successful. 

Alissa Cooper noted that making sure there was an experienced co-chair to 
keep the discussion on target would be useful. She also noted that there are 
other groups working in this area and having someone make sure that the IETF 
isn't duplicating efforts would be beneficial.

Melinda indicated that a lot of those kinds of issues could be resolved at 
the BoF.

Alissa added she thought one of the proponents might be involved with one of 
those other groups, and could speak to that. She wanted to make sure that 
discussion took place, especially as the BoF indicated it looked to be WG 
forming.

The RATS BoF was approved for IETF 103.

TRANSPORT AREA

NONE

IAB SESSIONS

NONE