Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 110 BOF coordination interim-2021-iesg-02 2021-01-14 21:30

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2021-01-14 21:30
Title Minutes IETF 110 BOF coordination interim-2021-iesg-02 2021-01-14 21:30
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

IETF 110 BoF Coordination Call
14 January 2021

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)
Benjamin Kaduk (SEC)
Erik Kline (INT)
Mirja KŸhlewind (IAB Chair)
Warren Kumari (OPS/MGT)
Barry Leiba (ART)
Cindy Morgan (Secretariat)
Mark Nottingham (IAB)
Karen O'Donoghue (ISOC)
Tommy Pauly (IAB)
Colin Perkins (IRTF)
Alvaro Retana (RTG)
Jeff Tantsura (IAB)
Amy Vezza (Secretariat)
Martin Vigoureux (RTG)
ƒric Vyncke (INT)
Magnus Westerlund (TSV)
Robert Wilton (OPS/MGT)
Jiankang Yao (IAB)


Cullen Jennings (IAB)
Murray Kucherawy (ART)
Zhenbin Li (IAB)
Jared Mauch (IAB)

Alissa Cooper welcomed the IESG and IAB to the BoF Coordination Call
and reminded the participants that the call was to determine the next
steps for the proposed BoFs. She noted that the process was slightly
different for IETF 110, as the IAB and IESG will have two weeks to
work with the BoF proponents before the BoF approval deadline.


o WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS (WISH)
Responsible AD: Murray Kucherawy

The proposed Working Group WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS (WISH)
was added to the BoF Wiki to make sure the group was able to get a
session to meet at IETF 110. The charter is in process, and it is
expected to be a working group by IETF 110.








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

Martin Vigoureux introduced the BoF effort for Application-aware
Networking (APN) and noted that this BoF had been proposed before.
During the discussion before IETF 109, it was suggested the Routing
Area Working Group (RTGWG) hold an interim meeting with the APN BoF
Proponents to gauge interest in the work. The interim meeting has not
yet taken place due to the end of year holidays and short time between
IETF 109 and IETF 110. Martin also noted the lack of any recent
discussion on the APN mailing list. He does not believe a BoF at this
time would be successful.

Tommy Pauly asked about the scope of the proposed BoF.

Martin V. stated that the current scope is for a single use-case. He
noted that he believed progress was being made, but that he was not
convinced it would lead to a successful BoF at this time.

Jari Arkko stated he was unsure the approach suggested in the BoF
write up was the right one but thought that the topic should be

Martin V. replied that he asked the proponents to have a high-level
description of the proposed solution to the problem to work toward.

Wes Hardaker wanted to know what problem they were looking to solve.
He cautioned against requiring a specific solution before the BoF
takes place.

Martin V. replied that his suggestion to the proponents was to help
narrow the scope in order to make the problem statement more concrete.

There was a short discussion on the type of outcome expected of the

Wes noted that he thought it was time for the community to discuss it.

Alissa Cooper said the IESG and IAB had made a decision before IETF
109 and she thought it was still a valid decision. She thought the
proponents should have the discussion in either RTGWG or hold an
interim meeting within the Routing Area.

Jeff Tantsura agreed the RTGWG would be a good place for the

ƒric Vyncke noted he would prefer that the IETF discuss the work
rather than let it go elsewhere. He also noted he was not sure it
belonged in the Routing Area.

Rob Wilton agreed that the discussion should take place.

Deborah Brungard asked where the discussion should happen, agreeing
that the Routing Area may not be the best fit.

Martin V. suggested that the Internet Area might also be a place to
discuss this.

The proposed Application-aware Networking (APN) BoF was not approved
for IETF 110. Martin V. will encourage the proponents to present in
the RTGWG as well as in the Internet Area.


o DLT Gateway Protocol (DGP)
Responsible ADs: Roman Danyliw and Ben Kaduk

Roman Danyliw introduced the DLT Gateway Protocol (DGP) BoF effort and
noted that he and the proponents had discussed the need to demonstrate
that the community has interest in the proposed work. The DGP
proponents held several Webex meetings privately, but have not
indicated how big the community that interested in the work is. Roman
noted that the use cases are broad, but he doesn't see any experts in
the field that are interested. He proposed using the two weeks until
the approval deadline to get more information from the proponents.

Stephen Farrell agreed with Roman's assessment. He also noted he did
not believe the BoF should be working group forming.

Roman agreed.

Ben Kaduk agreed that taking the two weeks to work with the proponents
and gauge the number of community experts for the technologies was a
good idea. He expressed concern about whether  the technology is
unique enough to require a unique solution.

Roman said the next step would be for the Security ADs to bring back
more information to make a final decision on 28 January 2021.

The proposed DLT Gateway Protocol (DGP) BoF was provisionally approved
for IETF 110. Based on the discussion with the proponents, the final
decision will be made on 28 January 2021.

o DANE for Client Identity and Certificate Discovery (DANECICD)
Responsible ADs: Roman Danyliw and Benjamin Kaduk

Roman Danyliw introduced the proposed DANE for Client Identity and
Certificate Discovery (DANECICD) BoF effort and added he is inclined
to approve the BoF with some tweaks. He said that the proponents
previously presented in SECDISPATCH, and the conclusion of the group
was for the proponents to narrow the scope before requesting a BoF. He
indicated that they have done so. He was unsure about whether this was
WG forming, as there was no proposed charter attached to the request.

Wes Hardaker said he spoke to the proponents earlier in the week and
discussed the possible charter for a new WG. He said that they have a
larger framework of work they want to solve, but they understood
working the problem in focused steps to get to the whole. They did not
have a charter ready by the BoF deadline, but are working on one.

Roman said that he was happy the proponents were willing to down scope
their original proposal based on the feedback from the community. He
added that whether or not there was a charter to focus on, he was
inclined to approve the BoF.

The proposed DANE for Client Identity and Certificate Discovery
(DANECICD) BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 110. Based on the
discussion with the proponents, the final decision will be made on 28
January 2021.