Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 108 BOF coordination interim-2020-iesg-14 2020-06-15 15:00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2020-06-15 15:00
Title Minutes IETF 108 BOF coordination interim-2020-iesg-14 2020-06-15 15:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

IETF 108 BoF Coordination Call
15 June 2020

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

Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki


Jari Arkko (IAB)
Deborah Brungard (RTG)
Ben Campbell (IAB)
Alissa Cooper (GEN)
Roman Danyliw (SEC)
Martin Duke (TSV)
Stephen Farrell (IAB)
Liz Flynn (Secretariat)
Wes Hardaker (IAB)
Cullen Jennings (IAB)
Erik Kline (INT) 
Murray Kucharawy (ART)
Mirja Kühlewind (IAB Chair)
Warren Kumari (OPS)
Barry Leiba (ART)
Zhenbin Li (IAB)
Jared Mauch (IAB)
Karen O'Donoghue (ISOC)
Tommy Pauly (IAB)
Colin Perkins (IRTF)
Alvaro Retana (RTG)
Jeff Tantsura (IAB)
Amy Vezza (Secretariat)
Martin Vigoureux (RTG)
Éric Vyncke (INT)
Magnus Westerlund (TSV)
Jiankang Yao (IAB)

Benjamin Kaduk (SEC)
Cindy Morgan (Secretariat)
Mark Nottingham (IAB)
Robert Wilton (OPS/MGT)


o Automatic SIP trunking And Peering WG (asap)
 Responsible Area Director: Murray Kucherawy

The proposed Working Group Automatic SIP trunking And Peering was 
added to the BoF Wiki to make sure the group was able to get a session 
to meet at IETF 108. The charter is in process, and it is expected to 
be a working group by IETF 108.

o A Semantic Definition Format for Data and Interactions of Things 
 Responsible AD: Barry Leiba

Barry Leiba introduced the ASDF BoF and addressed the questions 
regarding OPS Area vs ART Area. He stated that this BoF effort was 
limited to the language around using data models, but not data models 
themselves. The proponents for the BoF want to create a definition 
language for use in the context of the Internet of Things. He also 
addressed that there were concerns with work done in other SDOs such 
as the W3C, but the proponents want standardized language terms.

Cullen Jennings noted he went looking for other SDOs or people 
involved in building data models who wanted this, but could not find 
any. He wanted to know if there was discussion somewhere the IAB and 
IESG could see.

Alvaro Retana asked if other SDOs were consulted about the IETF 
process and IPR handling. Do other SDOs do those things differently, 
and would they be okay with the IETF process?

Wes Hardaker stated that the OPS Area uses data models in the IETF; 
why would those working groups not be used to create the defined 

Ben Campbell noted that there was a workshop held several years ago 
that dealt with this, but he hadn't seen anything since. He asked if 
those who went to the workshop were still engaged.

Colin Perkins mentioned that there was a more recent workshop with 
some vendors looking for this work.

Jari Arkko said that the first workshop was an IAB workshop, and he 
had a list of organizations interested in the work at that time.

Cullen replied that he couldn't find anyone interested in the work 
now, and this BoF might not meet the bar of needing people interested.

Warren Kumari noted that the BoF proposal listed a large number of 
models and that indicates some interest.

Alissa Cooper interjected there was no mailing list for the proposed 
BoF yet, so it was difficult to gauge interest. She asked if there was 
someplace else the proponents were discussing the work.

Barry replied that it had been discussed in the T2TRG, and on their 
mailing list.

Alissa noted she would like to know who would benefit from the work.

Colin mentioned that the proponents had been running a number of 
conference calls for a few months, and that one of the proponents has 
kept him (IRTF Chair) and ART Area Directors informed.

Ben C. noted the company affiliation of one of the proponents and 
asked if there were any other companies interested in the work.

Jari replied there were those at Ericsson interested, but as he wasn't 
working on it, he couldn't speak to the level of interest.

Cullen noted that the OneDM Web site hasn't been updated in a long 
time. He added that no one on the call seemed to know how to join the 
group, and that may be indicative of how insular the group is.

Barry agreed it was an issue, but still was willing to run the BoF, 
although he was leaning toward a non-Working Group forming BoF to see 
what the interest level was like.

Wes said he thought it was not ready for a BoF yet, and perhaps would 
be better as a side meeting or bar BoF.

Mirja Kühlewind noted that the proponents had presented the work in 
the T2TRG, and this may stand in as the pre-BoF meetings like a side 
meeting or a bar BoF.

Colin noted that if there was no community, a bar BoF or side meeting 
would not fix that.

Barry noted he would down-grade the request to a non-Working Group 
forming effort to gauge interest in the work. He would tell the group 
to focus on the work, and not to have charter discussions.

Cullen thought Barry should find out if there was a community to back 
the work.

Jari agreed, and noted the WG or non-WG forming status means very 
little, and showing there is a community ready and willing to work on 
the subject was key to success.

Roman Danyliw agreed and noted that it was fair to use a BoF to find 
out if there was a community in place to work on the topic.

The proposed ADSF BoF was approved for IETF 108.

o Revision of core Email specifications (emailcore)
 Responsible Area Director: Barry Leiba

Barry Leiba introduced the EMAILCORE BoF effort and noted that the 
goal of the BoF was to advance some of the core email standards to 
Internet Standard. He had been working on this with Alexey Melnikov 
during Alexey's tenure as an IESG Member. The group who are doing the 
work to update the standards want to meet during IETF 108.

Ben Campbell asked if the work was related to other email work being 
discussed elsewhere.

Barry replied that this effort was not related. This work is 
specifically to advance existing standards, not discuss new security 

The proposed EMAILCORE BoF was approved for IETF 108.


o Stay Home Meet Online (shmo)
 Responsible Area Director: Alissa Cooper

The proposed Working Group Stay Home Meet Online was added to the BoF 
Wiki to make sure the group was able to get a session to meet at IETF 
108. The charter is in process, and it is expected to be a working 
group by IETF 108.








o Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol (gnap)
 Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw

The proposed Working Group Grant Negotiation and Authorization was 
added to the BoF Wiki to make sure the group was able to get a session 
to meet at IETF 108. The charter is in process, and it is expected to 
be a working group by IETF 108.

o Privacy Pass (privacypass)
 Responsible Area Director: Benjamin Kaduk

The proposed Working Group Privacy Pass was added to the BoF Wiki to 
make sure the group was able to get a session to meet at IETF 108. The 
charter is in process, and it is expected to be a working group by 
IETF 108.


o Local Optimizations on Path Segments (loops)
 Responsible Area Director: Martin Duke

Martin Duke introduced the LOOPS BoF effort and noted this was the 
second BoF for the group. The first BoF was about a year ago. He also 
said that he'd been conversing with the proponents to scale and focus 
their effort.

Tommy Pauly asked how much they were including QUIC in their approach.

Martin D. replied that it was not specifically for QUIC, so not much.

Erik Kline asked if it was related to work done in the PANRG.

Martin D. admitted he was not sure.

Colin Perkins said he didn't think it was related.

Mirja Kühlewind agreed that the PANRG was working on different 
technology. She noted that the point of the BoF was to see if there 
were others interested in the work. One company's interest was known, 
but if it was only the one vendor with a couple of clients, what was 
the point of having a standard?

Martin D. said there were other vendors interested in deploying it, 
but was unsure how many.

Magnus Westerlund said the effort was focused over the network 
solution for within segments of the end-to-end path. Keeping it out of 
the data centers, but working between them for better recovery than 
the existing links.

The proposed LOOPS BoF was approved for a session at IETF 108.


o IAB Open Meeting(iabopen)
 IAB Member Responsible: Mirja Kühlewind

Mirja Kühlewind introduced the IAB Open Meeting and noted that the IAB 
had discussed doing something similar before. She noted that having 
the session in the scheduled agenda time would be beneficial.

Barry Leiba noted that he supported the effort as he was concerned a 
lot of the community did not know what the IAB did.

Warren Kumari also agreed the session would be well received and asked 
if anyone disagreed.

There was a short discussion about having the session in a time slot 
by itself, but Mirja reiterated she wanted it to be part of the whole 
agenda and not called out as a special session. She expected to have 
the IAB Open meeting at future IETF meetings.

Tommy Pauly suggested a short conflict list to include the dispatch 
type working groups, all the area meetings, any other BoF, and the 
Technology Deep Dive.

The IAB Open Meeting was approved for a session at IETF 108.


o Technology Deep Dive on DNS
 Responsible Area Director: Warren Kumari

Warren Kumari introduced the Technology Deep Dive on DNS and noted 
that it would be better to have the session during a time that did not 
conflict with any other sessions during IETF 108.

Wes Hardaker agreed, and noted that the session was likely to begin 
with a broad overview of DNS, followed by listing a number of 
problematic issues, and then concentrating on a couple of those issues 
in more detail.

Éric Vyncke asked if the session would be interactive with the 
audience encouraged to participate.

Warren replied that he expected it would be very interactive. He 
wasn't sure how that would work given all the participants would be 
remote, but he was hoping to have an active discussion.

Alissa Cooper asked what session length they wanted.

Warren replied as long as possible. There was no limit to the amount 
of material, and he expected there might be more than one session's 

Wes added that the longer session length should work (100 minutes).

There was a short discussion on which areas and other WGs to avoid 
before it was noted this session might work better in a session slot 
by itself, however to avoid the ART Area groups and OPS Area groups. 
Any group that would be interested in DNS.

Alissa noted a few other groups that had large conflict lists may work 
better in sessions with fewer parallel tracks as well. She will make 
note of those sessions (such as TLS, RTGWG, and QUIC) and see if they 
could build an agenda with a few time slots that had three or fewer 
parallel sessions.

The Technology Deep Dive on DNS was approved for a session at IETF