Minutes IETF 116 BOF coordination interim-2023-iesg-03 2023-02-01 17:00
minutes-interim-2023-iesg-03-202302011700-00

IETF 116 BOF Coordination Calls
2023-02-01, 2023-02-16

Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat

Additional reference materials available at the datatracker
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bof-requests)

Present:

* Alvaro Retana	
* Amy Vezza  	
* Andrew Alston
* Cindy Morgan
* Colin Perkins
* Cullen Jennings
* David Schinazi
* Deborah Brungard
* ƒric Vyncke
* Erik Kline
* Francesca Palombini
* Karen O'Donoghue
* Jari Arkko
* Jiankang Yao
* Jim Guichard
* John Scudder
* Lars Eggert
* Liz Flynn
* Mallory Knodel
* Mirja KŸhlewind
* Murray Kucherawy
* Paul Wouters
* Qin Wu
* Robert Wilton
* Roman Danyliw
* Warren Kumari
* Wes Hardaker
* Zahed Sarker

Regrets:
 Martin Duke
 Russ White
 Tommy Pauly
 Zhenbin Li


1. BPF/eBPF (bpf) - Internet Area
Responsible AD: Erik Kline

Erik Kline introduced the proposed BPF/eBPF BoF and said they had run
a side meeting at IETF 115.

Paul Wouters brought up some questions related to the Linux kernel
eBPF use, and asked whether Linux would relinquish change control to
the IETF. Erik agreed that this was an issue to be discussed.

Andrew Alston said that having two instances of BPF would be
detrimental.

Lars Eggert said the IETF BPF mailing list has been added to the Linux
mailing list so they seem to be working together, or at least aware of
the work being proposed in the IETF.

Wes Hardaker agreed that the challenge was to make it modular enough
to work for both.

ƒric Vyncke asked if the proposed BoF would be working group forming
or not.

Lars indicated that he would prefer the BoF be working group forming,
and for that they need a preliminary charter.

Cullen Jennings agreed.

Murray Kucherawy brought up some concerns but nothing that would stop
the work going forward.

There was a brief discussion on the issue of licensing for the work,
and Erik agreed it should be researched.

The BPF/eBPF proposed BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 116 as a
working group forming BoF. Erik will arrange a call with the
proponents to discuss licensing issues. On the February 16, 2023 IESG 
Teleconference, the IESG approved BFP as a BoF for IETF 116.

2. IPv6 Moving Object Networking (ipmon) - Internet Area
Responsible AD: Erik Kline

Erik Kline introduced the proposed IPMON BoF and mentioned they had
held a side meeting at IETF 115.

Jari Arkko attended the side meeting and said he thought the meeting
went well, however the problem to solve wasn't well defined and they
have some work to do before they run a BoF.

There was a discussion on whether the problem can be solved at all, as
well as if it should be solved in the IETF.

Deborah Brungard said that the RAW WG was doing some work that
includes 5G and should be made aware of the potential BoF.

Roman Danyliw asked who wanted the work done, and there was no clear
answer.

Erik will take the feedback back to the proponents, but due to the
unknowns, he does not support the BoF happening at IETF 116. He may
suggest that the proponents propose their use case to INTAREA instead.

The proposed IPMON BoF was not approved for IETF 116.

3. Computing-Aware Networking (can) - Routing Area
Responsible AD: John Scudder

John Scudder introduced the proposed CAN BoF and said the group is
currently in charter discussion for a new working group. He was hoping
the group would be chartered by IETF 116, but was unsure the process
would complete in time. He mentioned the charter was scoped down from
the previous BoF in an effort to help the group be successful.

Cullen Jennings asked if the charter for the proposed WG was not
approved by IETF 116, would he still run a BoF?

Initially, John was reluctant to run a BoF if the charter was not
approved in time for the group to meet. There was a discussion on the
viability of running another successful BoF. Mirja KŸhlewind mentioned
another BoF might be useful to get more feedback from the community.

John said he would like to see how the internal review goes with the
IAB and IESG before making a final decision on running a BoF at IETF
116.

The CAN BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 116. On the February 16, 
2023 IESG Teleconference, the IESG approved CAN as a BoF for IETF 116.

4. Structured Email (sml) - ART Area
Responsible AD: Murray Kucherawy

Murray Kucherawy introduced the proposed SML BoF and said that Barry
Leiba has been working with the proponents and stated the biggest
obstacle is defining how SML is different from MIME. He said he has
not gotten a clear answer from the proponents.

Lars Eggert said if they can't answer the question, he isn't sure they
are ready to hold a BoF where the community will ask the same question
in the session.

Warren Kumari suggested Murray turn the question around, for example
"Is this work different from MIME?" and see if that helps frame the
work.

Murray mentioned he has just received new text from the proponents he
hasn't looked at yet.

Mirja KŸhlewind said that Mallory Knodel, as shepherd from the IAB,
may be able to help the proponents.

The proposed SML BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 116. On the February 
16, 2023 IESG Teleconference, the IESG approved SML as a BoF for IETF 116.

5. Time Variant Routing (tvr) - Routing Area
Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

Alvaro Retana said the proposed TVR BoF is a placeholder for a
proposed WG currently in the charter process. He said it was close to
being approved and he'd like to hold a session at IETF 116 for the
proposed group.

Lars Eggert agreed the charter was close to being viable.

The proposed TVR Working Group was approved for a session at IETF 116.

6. Key Transparency (kt or keytrans) - Security Area
Responsible AD: Roman Danyliw

Roman Danyliw introduced the proposed KT/KEYTRANS BoF. He wants to
hold the BoF, but said the current write-up was underspecified and it
needed polish. He further said there was a push for the work, and he
would like to see what the interest is from the community.

ƒric Vyncke and Andrew Alston both said they thought the holding the
BoF was a good idea.

The proposed KT/KEYTRANS BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 116. 
On the February 16, 2023 IESG Teleconference, the IESG approved KEYTRANS 
as a BoF for IETF 116.

7. vCon (vcon) - ART Area
Responsible AD: Murray Kucherawy

Francesca Palombini introduced the proposed VCON BoF and said the work
was presented in DISPATCH and it was suggested a working group-forming
BoF would be an appropriate next step.

Mallory Knodel said that is seemed like this proposed work would to
reduce friction and normalizes the kind of targeted user data sharing
in a way that could end up threatening end-user privacy.

Cullen Jennings cautioned the IETF may not want to be involved in the
work.

Andrew Alston said issues of this type were what BoFs were for -
getting the discussion going in the community about the problem space.

Murray Kucherawy suggested the concerns be raised in the BoF.

David Schinazi agreed that the concerns about the work should be
raised in the BoF.

Mallory volunteered to help shepherd the BoF. Mallory suggested Daniel
Kahn Gilmor and/or Nick Doty as chairs.

The proposed VCON BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 116. On the 
February 16, 2023 IESG Teleconference, the IESG approved VCON as a BoF 
for IETF 116.

8: Domain Boundaries (dbound) - ART Area
Responsible AD: Murray Kucherawy

Murray Kucherawy introduced the proposed DBOUND BoF. He said the
concluded DBOUND Working Group spent a long time trying to show where
the boundaries were in the registration tree, but there were two
problem statements being worked on and they conflicted with each
other. After several years, the group concluded with no protocols
published. Now, there is a renewed interest in doing this work.

There was a short discussion on the viability of reviving the group.

The proposed DBOUND BoF was provisionally approved for IETF 116.
On the February 16, 2023 IESG Teleconference, the IESG approved DBOUND2 
as a BoF for IETF 116.

9: sw103kProtocol () - ? Area
Responsible AD:

Lars Eggert said he emailed the proponents, and he did not receive any
reply. This proposed BoF was rejected.