Minutes IETF 107 BOF coordination interim-2020-iesg-04 2020-02-13 16:00
minutes-interim-2020-iesg-04-202002131600-00

IETF 107 BoF Coordination Call
13 February 2020

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

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


ATTENDEES
---------------------

Jari Arkko (IAB)
Deborah Brungard (RTG)
Ben Campbell (incoming IAB)
Alissa Cooper (GEN)
Roman Danyliw (SEC)
Martin Duke (incoming TSV)
Stephen Farrell (IAB)
Liz Flynn (Secretariat)
Wes Hardaker (IAB)
Ted Hardie (IAB)
Cullen Jennings (incoming IAB)
Erik Kline (incoming INT)
Murray Kucharawy (incoming ART)
Mirja Kuehlewind (TSV)
Suresh Krishnan (INT)
Barry Leiba (ART)
Zhenbin Li (IAB)
Jared Mauch (incoming IAB
Alexey Melnikov (ART)
Cindy Morgan (Secretariat)
Erik Nordmark (IAB)
Karen O'Donoghue (ISOC)
Colin Perkins (IRTF)
Alvaro Retana (RTG)
Adam Roach (ART)
Melinda Shore (IAB)
Amy Vezza (Secretariat)
Martin Vigoureux (RTG)
Magnus Westerlund (TSV)
Robert Wilton (incoming OPS/MGT)

REGRETS
------------------------
Ignas Bagdonas (OPS)
Christian Huitema (IAB)
Benjamin Kaduk (SEC)
Warren Kumari (OPS)
Mark Nottingham (IAB)
Tommy Pauly (incoming IAB)
Jeff Tantsura (IAB)
Martin Thomson (IAB)
Brian Trammell (IAB)
ƒric Vyncke (INT)
Jiankang Yao (incoming IAB)

APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA

o Adaptive DNS Discovery (ADD)
Area Director: Barry Leiba

The proposed Working Group Adaptive DNS Discovery was added to the BoF Wiki
to make sure the group was able to get a session to meet at IETF 107. The
charter is in process, and it is expected to be a working group by IETF 107.

The proposed Working Group was approved for IETF 107 with no discussion.

o Realtime Internet Peering for Telephony (RIPT)
Responsible ADs: Adam Roach and Murray Kucherawy

Barry Leiba requested Cullen Jennings introduce the proposed RIPT BoF.

Cullen Jennings noted that the group has previously held side meetings to
discuss the problem of getting audio and video over http. He said there were
multiple possibilities for the problem they were looking to standardize.
Cullen mentioned better auto speech recognition, cloud-based calling
centers, streaming real-time voice for speech-to-text applications.

Barry asked if this had been presented in DISPATCH.

Cullen said that they had presented in DISPATCH at IETF 106 for information
and discussion.

Ted Hardie asked whether it was a single piece of work, or more than one.

Cullen noted that the charter was set up in a way that telephone-centric
work would be an extension of the base protocol. And that the question would
be reasonable if asked during the BoF. He was unsure if the BoF proponents
had thought about the issue in that way.

Alissa Cooper mentioned all the proponents of the work were very busy
people, so did they think about who would do the work they identified in the
BoF?

Erik Kline asked whether SIP bridging was in scope for the BoF.

Cullen responded that it needed to be easy to bridge and that the assumption
was the gateway would need to rewrite the media.

Ted mentioned that idea has different privacy issues, and having it be in
scope may be problematic.

Alissa asked if Adam would shepherd the BoF.

Barry noted that while Adam would be shepherding the BoF with regards to the
datatracker tools, he expected Murray Kucherawy would be the main contact
for the BoF.

Ben Campbell mentioned the lessons learned from RTCWEB, especially with
regards to document clusters.

Cullen took note of the suggestion.

Mirja Kuehlewind asked if it made a difference if they used H2 versus H3 for
the use-cases.

Cullen said they expected H2 to be the fall back, but using QUIC was not
something they expected to do.

The proposed RIPT BoF was approved for IETF 107.

o WebTransport (WEBTRANS)
Area Director: Barry Leiba

The proposed Working Group Webtransport was added to the BoF Wiki to make
sure the group was able to get a session to meet at IETF 107. The charter is
in process, and it is expected to be a working group by IETF 107.

The proposed Working Group was approved for IETF 107 with no discussion.

o Web Packaging (WPACK)
Area Director: Alexey Melnikov

The proposed Working Group Web Packaging was added to the BoF Wiki to make
sure the group was able to get a session to meet at IETF 107. The charter is
in process, and it is expected to be a working group by IETF 107.

The proposed Working Group was approved for IETF 107 with no discussion.

GENERAL AREA

NONE

INTERNET AREA

o Drone Remote ID Protocol (DRIP)
Responsible AD: ƒric Vyncke

The proposed Working Group Drone Remote ID Protocol was added to the BoF
Wiki to make sure the group was able to get a session to meet at IETF 107.
The charter is in process, and it is expected to be a working group by IETF
107.

The proposed Working Group was approved for IETF 107 with no discussion.

o Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption (MASQUE)
Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan

Suresh Krishnan introduced the proposed MASQUE BoF. He noted that the work
seems well scoped and there was active discussion on the mailing list. The
only question he sees is if the work will end up in the Internet or the
Transport areas.

Alissa Cooper asked whether a second chair would join the named chair.

Suresh responded he was still looking, so if anyone had names to put forth
for a chair that was interested in the work, and not conflicted, he would
accept suggestions.

The proposed BoF was approved for IETF 107.

OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREA

NONE

ROUTING AREA

o Application-aware Networking (APN)
Responsible AD: Martin Vigoureux

Martin Vigoureux introduced the proposed APN BoF and noted that the question
Adam Roach asked about the SPUD and PLUS efforts coming from the same space.
He continued that proponents were looking at the issue from the networking
layer. He further noted SPUD and PLUS were not in the Routing Area, so maybe
the proponents would benefit from different perspectives. He also said they
are primarily seeking input from others.

Adam Roach pointed out that the description text did not include privacy,
and he wondered about how the work was framed. He added that some of the
issues could be mitigated if they reached out to others who had worked in
the space and solved some of those issues before.

Martin V. asked for recommendations for people to review the proposed work.
He noted that they would like an IAB Shepherd to help guide the group.

Adam said heÕd be happy to connect Martin V. with some of the people who did
work in SPUD and PLUS.

Colin Perkins asked if the work was close to work being done in the PANRG
Research Group.

Ted Hardie added that since Zhenbin Li was a proponent of the work, he may
be willing to serve as the IAB shepherd for the group. He went on to say
Martin V. was welcome to ask for an additional IAB presence, but since
Zhenbin was already involved, they thought he would be able to help.

Martin V. said he wanted to ask the question because he wasnÕt sure if
Zhenbin being a proponent would require a different IAB shepherd.

Ted went on to comment he wasnÕt sure how this work with APIs would be used
to invoke this, and how the application side of the application aware
networking would make use of it. He added it looked similar to the SPUD and
PLUS BoF work, and also to the ITU focus group 230.

Martin V. noted he agreed that the proposed work was related to work
happening elsewhere. It was one of the reasons he wanted to explore what
work could be done in the IETF.

Ted responded that he wasnÕt sure the work was being proposed in the right
area. He noted that the operations perspective would not be the best
starting place for the work, and perhaps the applications area would be
better. He further questioned if the proponents had thought of the security
implications or the privacy implications of the work.

Zhenbin Li mentioned he was one of the proponents and would shepherd the
work for the IAB. He added he send email to add explanation for the work. He
said the work would be network layer work, and added that is why it was more
appropriate to be done in the Routing Area.

Erik Nordmark noted the scope of the work wasnÕt clear.

Wes Hardaker said that the work was inverse from typical for a protocol.
Instead of the application saying Òthis is what is neededÓ from the
protocol, the application is asking the protocol Òwhat are you?Ó

Mirja Kuehlewind noted she thought the scope was much too broad as well.

Alissa Cooper added that even if the scope could be narrowed, the
implication for the protocols was different.

Martin V. took note of all of the issues raised and indicated that he
thought there was still valuable work to do in this space, perhaps encourage
the proponents to return for IETF 108.

Zhenbin agreed that the BoF was looking to get more input for the work, and
meeting at IETF 107 would help their efforts. He agreed the BoF was not yet
working group forming, but would help in getting to the next step.

Deborah Brungard suggested a presentation in DETNET might help get the
exposure the proponents were looking for.

Martin V. agreed that presentations in other sessions would help refine the
possible work, including PANRG and DETNET and maybe other groups as well.

The proposed APN BoF was not approved for IETF 107.

SECURITY AREA

o Privacy Pass (PRIVACYPASS)
Responsible AD: Roman Danyliw

Roman Danyliw introduced the proposed Privacy Pass BoF as a narrowly focused
body of work for friendly tokens, verifiable only by the issuer. The work was
pitched in SECDISPATCH, and they decided to move forward with a BoF, as
there were already early adopters of the work.

Melinda Shore noted she saw email about the proposed BoF suggesting it might
be suitable for the IRTF, and she wanted to say she disagreed with that
assessment. She said the work was fairly mature, and not in research.

Stephen Farrell noted he thought she was responding to his email. He further
mentioned the documents might be better as experimental documents, but this
didnÕt block the BoF being approved.

Erik Nordmark thought the RATS working group should be added as an explicit
conflict.

Alissa Cooper asked if Roman had chairs in mind, as chairs would change the
conflict list.

Roman noted they didnÕt have chairs yet, and noted he would hopefully have
chairs by the beginning of the week.

The proposed PRIVACYPASS BoF was approved for IETF 107.

o Transactional Authorization (TXAUTH)
Responsible AD: Roman Danyliw

Roman Danyliw introduced the proposed BoF TXAUTH and noted that it was for
the next-generation delegation protocol. He said there had been active
discussion about what should stay in the existing OAUTH WG and what TXAUTH
might do. He expected better charter text soon.

The proposed TXAUTH BoF was approved for IETF 107.

TRANSPORT AREA

NONE

IAB Sessions

o Internet Threat Model (MODEL-T)
IAB Proponents for the meeting: Stephen Farrell and Jari Arkko

Stephen Farrell introduced the proposed MODEL-T open IAB session. There was
a brief discussion on whether this session should be in the open agenda time
(before 10:00am, labeled as a side meeting) or scheduled like any other
group on the main agenda.

Jared Mauch noted that he much preferred having everything on the main
agenda.

Alissa Cooper asked if this was MODEL-TÕs first meeting.

Ted Hardie said that the group had met at the last meeting, but it wasnÕt as
visible as they need it to be.

The IAB session for MODEL-T was approved for a session at IETF 107.