Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 106 BOF coordination interim-2019-iesg-21 2019-10-09 13:30

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2019-10-09 13:30
Title Minutes IETF 106 BOF coordination interim-2019-iesg-21 2019-10-09 13:30
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

IETF 106 BoF Coordination Call
9 October 2019

Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat 
Revised with notes from: Ben Kaduk, Wes Hardaker

Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki 

Jari Arkko (IAB)
Ignas Bagdonas (OPS)
Deborah Brungard (RTG)
Alissa Cooper (GEN)
Roman Danyliw (SEC)
Stephen Farrell (IAB)
Liz Flynn (Secretariat)
Wes Hardaker (IAB)
Ted Hardie (IAB)
Christian Huitema (IAB)
Benjamin Kaduk (SEC)
Mirja Kuehlewind (TSV)
Warren Kumari (OPS)
Suresh Krishnan (INT)
Barry Leiba (ART)
Zhenbin Li (IAB)
Alexey Melnikov (ART)
Cindy Morgan (Secretariat)
Erik Nordmark (IAB)
Mark Nottingham (IAB)
Karen O'Donoghue (ISOC)
Colin Perkins (IRTF)
Alvaro Retana (RTG)
Adam Roach (ART)
Brian Trammell (IAB)
Amy Vezza (Secretariat)
Martin Vigoureux (RTG)
Éric Vyncke (INT)
Magnus Westerlund (TSV)


Jeff Tantsura (IAB)
Martin Thomson (IAB)
Melinda Shore (IAB)


o Application Behavior Considering DNS (abcd)
 Responsible AD: Barry Leiba

Barry Leiba introduced the proposed ABCD BoF and said that he knew 
Stephen had some issues surrounding the scope in the proposed 

Stephen Farrell agreed and said he would continue discussions via 
email, but was not opposed to holding the BoF.

Alissa Cooper asked in Barry thought 90 minutes was too short for the 
discussion. She noted that there were some technical proposals to 
discuss, and devoting some time for them would be useful.

There was a short discussion on who Barry could ask to chair the 

The proposed ABCD BoF was approved for IETF 106.

o Web Packaging (wpack)
 Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov

Alexey Melnikov introduced the proposed WPACK BoF and indicated he 
thought the BoF should be approved. He said the side meeting at the 
previous IETF was successful. He noted that he had a couple of 
potential chairs for the session.

Ben Kaduk asked if the room size indicated in the wiki would be big 
enough. Alexey thought it would.

Christian Huitema asked how the work related to the IAB ESCAPE 
Workshop, and if the related materials for the BoF should include the 
workshop report.

Ben noted they didn't hold a BoF at IETF 105 because of the workshop, 
and agreed a pointer would be a good idea.

Alexey asked for the link to the report to add to the related 
materials (

The proposed WPACK BoF was approved for IETF 106.

o WebTransport (webtrans)
 Responsible AD: Barry Leiba

Barry Leiba introduced the proposed WEBTRANS BoF and said he thought 
the group is non-controversial and well thought out. He wanted to 
approve the BoF.

Mirja Kuehlewind brought up the relationship to QUIC, and holding the 
BoF at 106 might be premature. She advocated to wait until 107, when 
QUIC finished the piece of their work the BoF work would utilize. 

Barry suggested holding the BoF as a non-wg forming BoF to begin to 
discuss the work, and not the potential charter text.

Ben Kaduk asked about the interest from the W3C.

Barry said it was not time critical, so waiting to IETF 107 should be 

Mark Nottingham disagreed, and noted they were impatient to start the 
work. He suggested holding the BoF so they could begin working, but 
slow down the creation of the working group until IETF 107, to allow 
QUIC to finish some pieces necessary.

There was a short discussion on the intersection between the proposed 
WEBTRANS work and QUIC. And a short debate on side meeting vs. non-wg 
forming BoF. 

Mirja agreed to discuss the concerns raised by the IESG and IAB with 
the proponents of the BoF. 

The proposed WEBTRANS BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 106 
pending edits to the BoF proposal for a non-WG forming BoF.


o General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
 Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper

Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed GENDISPATCH BoF, mentioning 
that the charter is in process, and the group may be an active 
working group by the Singapore IETF. 

There was a short discussion on the amount of time to give the BoF. 
Alissa admitted she wasn't sure what the agenda would look like, if 
there was enough work to justify the two-hour time slot, and maybe 
one hour would be more useful for the new group. Barry Leiba 
mentioned that there may be more to add to the agenda closer to the 
IETF so keeping the proposed time slot may be needed.

The proposed GENDISPATCH BoF was approved for IETF 106.


o Trustworthy Multipurpose Remote ID (tmrid)
 Responsible AD: Éric Vyncke

Éric Vyncke introduced the TM-RID BoF and noted this group had a side 
meeting at the Montreal IETF. He said there were about twenty people at the 
side meeting, and he wasn't expecting many more than that for the BoF. 

There was a short discussion on the placement in the stack for this work. 
Alissa Cooper asked if there was industry that wanted this work done.

Éric said that HIP had two documents in this space, but he was unsure the 
HIP WG was the right place for the work.

Suresh Krishnan noted that the HIP WG was somewhat low-energy, and the BoF 
proponents were looking for more. He wasn't sure they would have enough 
momentum to finish the work, but was willing to let them hold the BoF to 
gauge interest.

The proposed TMRID BoF was approved for IETF 106 as a non-WG forming BoF 
(NOTE: the tooling will not accept the hyphen in the acronym).


o Media OPerationS (mops)
 Responsible AD: Warren "Ace" Kumari

Éric Vyncke expressed that this group had a side meeting, and is in the 
process of becoming a working group. He advocated for approval. Suresh 
Krishnan agreed.

Barry Leiba noted that the proposed chairs have been the proponents for the 
group for a long time, and it might be better to pair one of them with 
someone else for a diversity of viewpoint for the work.

The proposed MOPS BoF was approved for IETF 106.


o Reliable and Available Wireless (raw)
 Responsible AD: Deborah Brungard

Deborah Brungard introduced the proposed RAW BoF and noted that the 
work might fit into the DETNET WG, but might not. This was one of the 
things she hopes is answered in the BoF.

Erik Nordmark asked if the IEEE wanted the IETF to do this work.

Deborah noted that was one of the questions to be answered in the 
BoF, if the work here was in the data plane of the wireless, or more 
like multilayer OAM.

Suresh Krishnan added there seemed to be a community of interested 
people interested in this work. He added that it was unclear if this 
work was more suited for the INT Area or the RTG Area, but with the 
potential crossover with DETNET the BoF was proposed in the RTG Area.

Magnus Westerlund noted that there was a previous BoF in this space 
that wasn't very informative. 

Suresh said he thought the meeting focused too much on a potential 
charter and not enough on what work there was to do.

Jari Arkko added that after the previous BoF he had the impression 
there was a lot of potential work for the IETF, but was unclear of 
the relationship to DETNET.

The proposed RAW BoF was approved for IETF 106.


o Transactional Authorization and Delegation (txauth)
 Responsible AD: Roman Danyliw

Roman Danyliw introduced the TXAUTH BoF and noted this group developed in 
the OAUTH WG, but they needed broader perspective. He advocated to hold the 

There was a short discussion on whether the requested 2 hours was too much 
time, but Roman believed it would appropriate for the discussion.

The proposed TXAUTH BoF was approved for IETF 106.

o MatheMatical Mesh (mathmesh)
 Responsible AD: Ben Kaduk

Ben Kaduk introduced the proposed BoF and noted that there is a lot 
of academic literature in this space. He felt the potential for work 
for the IETF was worth holding the BoF.

There was a short discussion on holding the BoF as a working group 
forming or non-working group forming BoF.

Brian Trammell noted that a non-wg forming BoF would allow the 
community to see the possibilities instead of being caught up 
discussion of a potential WG group charter.

The proposed MATHMESH BoF was approved as a non-WG forming BOF for 
IETF 106.

o Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange (lake)
 Responsible AD: Ben Kaduk

Ben Kaduk noted that the LAKE chartering effort was in external 
review, and that it would likely be an active working group by IETF 
106, and he wanted to make sure it got a session on the agenda.

The proposed LAKE BoF was approved for IETF 106.




o Community Process for RSE Model Evolution (rseme)
 Responsible Group: IAB

Ted Hardie introduced the ongoing work for the RFC Model evolution, 
and noted that the teleconferences have not used their allotted time. 
He wondered if the 90 minutes session request was too much time. 

Wes Hardaker responded and noted that in-person meetings might need more 
time, and that some of the more vocal community members have not 
attended the teleconferences. 

Ted agreed 90 minutes would give enough time for the topic. 

The RSEME IAB Session was approved for IETF 106.