Skip to main content

Minutes IETF 111 BOF coordination interim-2021-iesg-12 2021-06-01 15:00

Meeting Minutes Internet Engineering Steering Group (iesg) IETF
Date and time 2021-06-01 15:00
Title Minutes IETF 111 BOF coordination interim-2021-iesg-12 2021-06-01 15:00
State (None)
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2024-02-23

IETF 111 BoF Coordination Call
1 June 2021

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

Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki


Jari Arkko (IAB)
Deborah Brungard (IAB)
Ben Campbell (IAB)
Martin Duke (TSV)
Lars Eggert (IETF Chair)
Liz Flynn (Secretariat)
Wes Hardaker (IAB)
Cullen Jennings (IAB)
Benjamin Kaduk (SEC)
Erik Kline (INT)
Olaf Kolkman
Mirja KŸhlewind (IAB Chair)
Warren Kumari (OPS/MGT)
Zhenbin Li (IAB)
Jared Mauch (IAB)
Cindy Morgan (Secretariat)
Karen O'Donoghue (ISOC)
Francesca Palombini (ART)
Tommy Pauly (IAB)
Colin Perkins (IRTF)
Alvaro Retana (RTG)
Zahed Sarker (TSV)
John Scudder (RTG)
Amy Vezza (Secretariat)
Martin Vigoureux (RTG)
ƒric Vyncke (INT)
Jiankang Yao (IAB)

Roman Danyliw (SEC)
Murray Kucherawy (ART)
David Schinazi (IAB)
Russ White (IAB)
Robert Wilton (OPS/MGT)


o Serialising Extended Data About Times and Events (SEDATE)
  Responsible AD: Francesca Palombini

The proposed Working Group Serialising Extended Data About Times and
Events (SEDATE) was added to the BoF Wiki to make sure the group was
able to get a session to meet at IETF 111. The charter is in process,
and it is expected to be a working group by IETF 111.




o MAC Address Device Identification for Network and Application
Services (MADINAS)
  Responsible AD: ƒric Vyncke

ƒric Vyncke introduced the MADINAS BoF effort, mentioning that the
group met at a previous IETF when they were non-working group forming,
and the BoF at IETF 111 will be working group forming. At the time,
they received feedback about privacy, which they have continued to
work on within the group at two informal virtual meetings. He also
stated there has been interest from multiple vendors for the work.
ƒric stated he believed the BoF should be held.

Lars Eggert noted a mismatch between the deliverables and the draft
charter text.

ƒric agreed that the charter text was unfinished, and had changed
recently due to a side meeting. He also noted that the proponents are
fairly new to the IETF process. He said that the updated text
clarified that the work that will be done is specifically on the
networking and application side, and will not touch privacy.

Lars suggested the group may want a technical advisor with privacy

Alvaro Retana suggested waiting until the problem statement was
clearly defined.

Warren Kumari agreed that the current draft charter needed work, but
also said the BoF should be held.

Lars suggested adding PEARG to the conflict list.

The proposed MADINAS BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 111.




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

Martin Vigoureux introduced the proposed Application-aware Networking
(APN) BoF. He said the BoF proponents had presented the proposed work
in a number of sessions at IETF 110, and the feedback received helped
re-scope the work to the IETF. He also said that RTGWG has an upcoming
interim meeting scheduled with APN as the only discussion topic.
Martin noted he has three chairs ready for the BoF.

Jari Arkko agreed that the BoF proposal had made progress since IETF
110. He mentioned there were still issues, including if a new protocol
was necessary at all.

Martin V. agreed the questions were valuable and should be addressed
during the BoF.

Tommy Pauly suggested changing the name of the BoF as he felt the word
"application" would create confusion around the subject of the BoF.

Martin V. agreed to discuss the BoF name with the proponents. He also
invited the IESG and IAB to get involved in the discussion of the BoF.

Warren Kumari said he did not understand what problem the BoF would

Martin V. agreed that the problem statement may have gone from too
broad to too tightly scoped. He also wanted to get the right people in
the room for the discussion.

Warren agreed that holding the BoF seems to be the right thing to do.

Deborah Brungard mentioned that the BoF may need more operators
involved. She also agreed the BoF should be approved.

Ben Kaduk suggested the BoF chairs should edit the agenda for the BoF
to work more on the problem statement than a specific solution.

Mirja KŸhlewind asked about the RTGWG interim meeting for APN, and
whether the work fits into an existing working group. The work seemed
to be extensions of existing protocols.

Martin V. mentioned the interim meeting would be to scope the work for
a successful BoF. He also mentioned that he wanted to approve the BoF
for IETF 111.

Zhenbin (Robin) Li explained that the scope of the BoF had been
narrowed to confine the work to the private domain of the network

Warren noted that the definition of "limited domain" was variable
which could be a problem, but he supported having the BoF.

Jari agreed the scope wasn't yet clear, but said that holding the BoF
could clarify that.

The proposed APN BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 111.


o DANE for IoT Service Hardening (DANISH)
  Responsible AD: Roman Danyliw

Wes Hardaker introduced the proposed DANE for IoT Service Hardening
(DANISH) BoF, noting that this would be the second BoF for DANISH. The
BoF would do some work on a charter for the proposed working group.

Cullen Jennings mentioned that the group seems to have only part of a
possible charter.

Lars Eggert suggested taking the conversation to email since Roman
wasn't able to make the call.

Wes said he would encourage the group to work more on the charter text
in preparation for the BoF.

The proposed DANISH BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 111.