Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 104 BOF coordination interim-2019-iesg-04 2019-02-15 17:00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2019-02-15 17:00
Title Minutes IETF 104 BOF coordination interim-2019-iesg-04 2019-02-15 17:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

IETF 104 BoF Coordination Call
15 February 2019

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

Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki 

Alexa Morris Secretariat
Alexey Melnikov ART
Alissa Cooper GEN
Allison Mankin IRTF Chair
Alvaro Retana RTG
Amy Vezza Secretariat
Barry Leiba Incoming ART
Ben Campbell ART
Benjamin Kaduk SEC
Cindy Morgan Secretariat
Colin Perkins Incoming IRTF
Deborah Brungard RTG
Eric Rescorla SEC
√Čric Vyncke Incoming INT
Ignas Bagdonas OPS
Jari Arkko IAB
Jeff Tantsura IAB
Karen O'Donoghue 
Liz Flynn Secretariat
Magnus Westerlund Incoming TSV 
Martin Vigoureux RTG 
Melinda Shore IAB 
Robert Sparks IAB 
Roman Danyliw Incoming SEC 
Spencer Dawkins TSV 
Stephen Farrell Incoming IAB 
Suresh Krishnan INT 
Suzanne Woolf IAB 
Ted Hardie IAB  
Warren Kumari OPS

Adam Roach ART 
Brian Trammell IAB  
Christian Huitema IAB 
Erik Nordmark IAB 
Gabriel Montengro IAB 
Mark Nottingham IAB 
Martin Thomson IAB 
Mirja Kuehlewind TSV 
Terry Manderson INT 
Wes Hardaker Incoming IAB 
Zhenbin Li Incoming IAB


o Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI) - 1 of 1 
 Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov, Barry Leiba 

Barry Leiba introduced the proposed BIMI BoF. He noted that the work for BIMI was started by 
people from M3AAWG. The work is about attaching corporate information to authenticated 
messages. It would ensure email would use DKIM for authentication. 

Eric Rescorla asked about which clients wanted the work.

Barry admitted that was an open question, but thought Google and perhaps Microsoft had 
worked in this space, but noted there was no commitment to it.

Allison Mankin indicated she knew of one way to do this that was IPR-encumbered.

Barry said that this effort was currently IPR-free, and he was in agreement with the other Area 
Directors in the area that they thought holding the BoF to discuss it was a good idea.

Ben Campbell worried about the packaging of the BoF but ultimately didn't block it.

Eric R. wondered if it was a good idea at all, and why they should be given agenda time.

Alissa Cooper reminded the group that sometimes scheduling time at the IETF is a good way to 
further or complete a discussion started on an email list.

Jari Arkko asked if there was any kind of gatekeeping on the type of images shown. Could a 
spoofed or near-logo pass?

Ted Hardie noted that bringing that issue up in the BoF would be a good discussion to make 
sure it focused on phishing prevention and not supplying a new phishing method.

Barry noted this was exactly why they wanted to approve the BoF and have the discussion. He 
went on to mention the people he was hoping to get as BoF chairs.

Suggestions for chairs were given. 

Alissa noted that some of the things discussed on the call might be useful to take back to the 
BoF proponents so they could refine the request ahead of the BoF. 

The proposed BoF was approved for IETF 104.


o Do Online Gatherings Fit Our Organizational Demands? (DOGFOOD)
 Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper 

Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed DOGFOOD BoF effort and indicated that she had 
discussed the proposal with the proponent. She indicated that the proponent had not been 
aware of the MANYCOUCHES design team effort that had concluded within the last couple of 

Barry Leiba agreed and thought it might be an okay side meeting.

Spencer Dawkins encouraged Alissa to take the idea of announcing a side meeting for this topic 
at the HotRFC session. He also noted that it did not seem to have been well researched enough 
to hold a BoF.

Alissa agreed to take the side meeting and HotRFC announcement idea back to the BoF 

The proposed BoF was not approved for IETF 104. 


o Predictable and Available Wireless (PAW) 
 Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan

Suresh Krishnan introduced the proposed PAW BoF. He indicated that this was following up 
from a BarBoF. He indicated it might not be ready to be a WG-forming BoF, but he wanted to 
put it on the agenda because of the number of possible conflicts. 

Jari Arkko noted that the discussion could happen in the DETNET Working Group.

Suresh replied that it was considered, but they were targeting some audience that was not 
normally in attendance in DETNET. And for that reason they wanted a separate BoF.

Deborah Brungard also noted that the work started in a BoF could easily be worked in to an 
existing Working Group later.

Suresh agreed.

Magnus Westerlund asked about other SDOs and this work.

Suresh mentioned the IEEE TSN were interested in this work, but was unsure if 3GPP was 
interested and he would check.

Spencer Dawkins mentioned he'd looked at the latest mailing list traffic and noted they were 
looking ahead to the Montreal meeting this summer with WG charter text. He wondered if the 
time allotment of two hours was excessive for a first BoF.

Suresh agreed and said that an hour and a half was probably sufficient.

Jari added that editing the charter to add text on how the work relates to DETNET and other 
SDOs might help in scoping the work for the proposed WG.

Suresh agreed to edit the request for a BoF to limit the length of time and to update the conflict 
list as discussed. 

The proposed BoF was approved for IETF 104. 


o KSK Futures (KSK) 
 Responsible AD: Warren "Ace" Kumari

Warren Kumari introduced the proposed BoF session for KSK Futures and noted that it would 
be a fine BoF or side meeting. He noted that getting more visibility as a BoF would assist the 
effort. He noted that KSK has been rolled, but getting feedback on how often to roll it in the 
future would be helpful. 

Barry Leiba noted that it would be useful to have it on the main agenda as a BoF. He wondered 
if there would be enough operators in attendance to make it successful.

Warren thought there would be. He noted that between having a side meeting or BoF at the 
IETF as well as a similar session at ICANN would be helpful. He added that he could ask to have 
similar meetings at both NANOG and RIPE for wider visibility. 

With the caveat that it could happen as a side meeting instead of a BoF if there were a shortage 
of time and space, the proposed BoF was approved for IETF 104.

o Technology Deep Dive - Modern Router Architecture (AGOT)
 Responsible AD: Warren "Ace" Kumari

Warren Kumari introduced the BoF effort by saying this was only on the BoF list in order to 
make sure it gets time on the agenda. This is a dual-effort session between the EDU Team and 
members of the IESG. He mentioned this would be a panel discussion on how things operate in 
the real world differ from how they're described in RFCs. This particular discussion will focus on 
modern router architecture. 

Spencer Dawkins added that tutorials in the IETF are usually run for the simplest level of 
understanding, and this session would be much more technical in structure, as well as more 
interactive for participants. 

Alissa Cooper asked if this session was meant to be scheduled in the unstructured open time.

There was a short discussion on the nature of what open time meant in terms of avoidance of 
scheduling conflicts. Spencer noted that this topic was taken from a number of discussion 
threads that indicated that modern routers were not well understood, and interest in the topic 
touched a number of IETF areas.

Eric Rescorla noted that the Sunday Tutorial time was specifically for broader topics that did not 
fit within a specific area, and perhaps this topic belonged there.

Warren responded that with the current set up the Sunday Tutorials were now aimed at 
orienting Newcomers to the way the IETF works. 

The proposed BoF was approved for IETF 104, and further approved to be scheduled within the 
open, or unscheduled, agenda time.

o Next Steps and Variations on BRSKI (NSVB)
 Responsible AD: Ignas Bagdonas

Ignas Bagdonas introduced the proposed NSVB BoF. He mentioned that it is related to, but not 
currently in the scope of the ANIMA Working Group. He noted that this was intended to gather 
the requirements to extend BRSKI, and to look at the use cases.

Jari Arkko mentioned a side meeting might be the right way to go, rather than a BoF.

Alissa Cooper noted that if it was so related to ANIMA, than the working group could request a 
second agenda slot for this work instead of running a BoF.

Jari agreed, and noted that it did not seem like there was enough substance for a BoF, but a 
side meeting or BarBoF would be appropriate.

Ignas agreed to see if the ANIMA working group would prefer a second agenda slot or a side 

The proposed BoF was not approved for IETF 104. 


o BNG Control-plane And User-plane SEparation (BCAUSE)
 Responsible AD: Martin Vigoureux 

Martin Vigoureux introduced the BCAUSE BoF effort. He mentioned it came out of a liaison 
relationship with the BBF on decentralizing BNG, and asking for a protocol between the control 
plane and the user plane. He added that the work has been taking place in the RTGWG, and 
they wanted to see if there was enough interest to form a working group to complete the work.

Alissa Cooper asked in the group would meet at the Prague IETF if the working group 
completed a charter.

Martin indicated that he did not think it would. He also stated that he wanted a meeting slot to 
further the charter discussion. If the charter discussion wrapped up before the Prague meeting, 
they might not use the time.

Jari Arkko asked how well the work has been coordinated with the BBF.

Martin indicated that the authors of the drafts are also active in the BBF, and they have been 
exchanging liaison statements regarding the work. He also noted he'd reach out to make sure 
this work was in scope for what was asked for.

The proposed BoF was approved for IETF 104. 


o Collaborative Automated Course of Action Operations for Cyber Security (CACAO)
 Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk 

Benjamin Kaduk introduced the CACAO proposed BoF. He noted that Incoming Security AD 
Roman Danyliw had worked closely with the BoF proponents to scale the proposal 
appropriately. He added that it was related to work in RFC 6545, but it is unclear how different 
the work would be, and it was likely worth letting the BoF happen.

Eric Rescorla did not think the BoF description was well thought out and lacked clarity. He did 
mention it was probably a good thing to let it happen and clarity might come from the 

Alissa Cooper agreed that the scope of the proposed work was unclear.

Benjamin tried to explain what he thought they were working toward.

Ted Hardie asked if it was reintroducing source quench.

Benjamin answered he wasn't sure.

Ted indicated that IAB member Brian Trammell had been thinking about source quench lately 
and he might be a good resource. Perhaps he would be willing to serve as IAB Shepherd for the 
BoF effort.

Eric R. indicated he thought it might fit in OPS as easily as SEC. He wondered if they would get 
the right people in the room for both aspects of the work.

Melinda Shore supported the possible move to OPS and noted that there might be some 
overlap with the proposed SMART Research Group BoF.

Spencer Dawkins asked if the group thought it was more research than engineering and should 
move to the IRTF.

Eric R. didn't think it mattered in reference to holding or not holding the BoF.

Benjamin asked if there was any information needed that would block the BoF from happening 
if the proponents didn't deliver.

Alissa said no, but a more coherent explanation of how the proponents thought this technology 
would be used would be useful.

The proposed BoF was approved for IETF 104.

o Remote Attestation (RATS) 
 Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk

Benjamin Kaduk introduced the proposed RATS BoF and noted that it was on the list as a 
placeholder for a proposed WG already in process. He expected it to be chartered before the 
Prague meeting, but wanted to make sure it was able to be scheduled.

The proposed Working Group was approved for IETF 104 with no further discussion. 

o Canonical JSON  
 Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk

Benjamin Kaduk introduced the Canonical JSON BoF effort. He noted that the proposed work 
was introduced in SAAG recently, but there wasn't enough people interested or supportive. He 
also mentioned he wasn't sure SEC was the right place to do this work.

Eric Rescorla noted there were not many who thought it would be useful.

Alissa Cooper asked if there were others who expressed interest.

Benjamin did not know, if there were they were not indicating interest on any of the lists.

Alissa suggested they use IETF 104 to have an informal gathering to see how wide-spread the 
interest was, and a side meeting might help them scope the work.

Benjamin agreed, and noted that ART might be a better place for this work.

The proposed BoF was not approved for IETF 104.






o Stopping Malware and Researching Threats (SMART) 
 IRTF Chair: Allison Mankin

Allison Mankin introduced the proposed Research BoF and noted that she wasn't ready to give 
the group Proposed Research Group status, but wanted to discuss the appropriate place for the 
group with the IAB and the IESG. The group has had side meetings in the past. She was unsure 
the group belonged in the IRTF, but thought they should have a session on the agenda to 
discuss it. 

Ted Hardie asked if she thought it might be a good move to have the group sponsored by the 
IAB instead of the IRTF as the work had come out of the CARIS Workshop. 

Allison agreed that would be a good way forward. She added she would still be willing to 
sponsor it in the IAB

Colin Perkins added he thought it would be a good idea.

Ted said that it would be an IAB session as a follow up to the workshop. He would be willing to 
co-sponsor it with Allison.

The proposed research BoF was approved as an IAB session for IETF 104.