2016-09-09: Minutes
slides-interim-2021-ietfieee-05-sessa-2016-09-09-minutes-00

IAB, IESG and IEEE 802 Executive Committee
Minutes of the 9 September 2016 Meeting, Paris, France

Reported by: Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)

ATTENDEES
-------------------
- Jari Arkko 
- Alia Atlas (remote)
- Deborah Brungard 
- Benoit Claise 
- Alissa Cooper (remote)
- Subir Das 
- Spencer Dawkins (remote)
- Donald Eastlake 
- János Farkas 
- Stephen Farrell (remote)
- Eric Gray (remote)
- Ted Hardie 
- Bob Heile
- Marc Holness (remote)
- Suresh Krishnan 
- Cindy Morgan
- Glenn Parsons (remote)
- Dan Romascanu
- Jon Rosdahl
- Dorothy Stanley
- Andrew Sullivan 
- Pat Thaler 
- Pascal Thubert 	
- Rob Wilton 
- Juan Carlos Zuniga

MINUTES
-------------------

1.  Introductions (including new EC, IESG, IAB members), goals of the 
    meeting

  Dan Romascanu welcomed everyone to the meeting and led a round of 
  introductions (see list of attendees, above).


2.  Status of the Shared Areas work (Dan, Pat)

  Coordination Doc: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/
  Potential-areas-for-IETF_IEEE802-Coordination_21.txt

  Dan Romascanu reviewed the list of shared work items. The 
  coordination document (see above) has the current status of each item.

  For item 3, IETF NVO3 and IEEE 802.1 DCB, Pat Thaler reported that the 
  P802.1Qcn document is in Task Group ballot. Glenn Parsons has an 
  action to make  the document available to NVO3.

  For item 11, IETF and IEEE 802.1 OmniRAN TG, OmniRAN has an action 
  item to update the IETF INTAREA on the current status of the document. 
  Juan Carlos Zuniga will follow up with Max Riegel to pass that message 
  along.

  For item 19, Common OAM proposal / Layer Independent OAM, Dan 
  Romascanu reported that much of the relevant work in TRILL is close to 
  completion; 802.1 will be notified when the documents go to IETF Last 
  Call.

  For item 21, 6tisch, Pascal Thubert reported that the 6TISCH WG is 
  working on a new charter to expand what it has done and bring in some 
  of the work from the ANIMA WG, which does not take IOT into 
  consideration. Dan Romascanu observed that ANIMA is not mentioned in 
  the description for this item on the shared list, and should be added 
  to the description.

  For item 22, CAPWAP extensions in OPSAWG, Dan Romascanu reported that 
  there is one document waiting for AD review.

  For item 29, Opportunistic Wireless Encryption (OWE), Dan Romascanu 
  reported that a mailing list was created for discussion on this after 
  the IETF meeting in Berlin. 

  For item 30, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Suresh Krishnan 
  reported that the charter just went into internal review. Dorothy 
  Stanley added that she included this in her July liaison report to 
  802.11.


3.  IoT related work in IETF and IEEE 802 

  Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/IOT-
  related-work.pdf

  Pat Thaler updated the group on IOT work areas in 802. The current 
  work focuses on:

  - Enabling use of local MAC addresses
  - Time Sensitive Networking (TSN)
  - Physical layers for IOT (low cost, low power)
  - Privacy considerations

  Additionally, 802.24 is working on white papers on the relationship 
  between IEEE 802 standards and IoT, which is also a focal point for 
  any general liaisons on IOT to IEEE 802.

  Subir Das asked if the the 802.1 work on TSN refers is specifically on 
  ethernet. Pat Thaler replied that it is not; while it can be 
  controlled more closely on ethernet than it can be on some of the 
  wireless protocols, there are cases where wireless can control time 
  adequately, as with scheduled transmissions.

  Suresh Krishnan noted that there are specific privacy concerns about 
  IOT; a draft in the 6LO Working Group (draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-
  considerations, Privacy Considerations for IPv6 over Networks of 
  Resource-Constrained Nodes) attempts to address some of this. 

  Ted Hardie observed that one of the constraints is that the ability to 
  change identifiers is low; the systems in which these things are 
  deployed are not thinking in time scales that are consonant with the 
  time scales the devices are deploying. He asked if figuring out how 
  the architecture can provide these privacy capabilities is joint work.

  Pat Thaler replied that it would be addressed in the privacy document. 
  The local controller will mediate any discussions with the larger 
  world. Ted Hardie noted that there are consequences if the local 
  controller talks to everything if that is not in the architecture of 
  the particular system. The initial deployment might have a use case 
  and understanding of what talks to what that can be completely 
  confounded if different things start communicating. The time scales of 
  some of the devices in the network are used in these varied contexts. 
  Ted asked if that should be discussed in 802E, in IETF, or in joint 
  work.

  Juan Carlos Zuniga replied that it depends on the use case. It is on 
  802E to think about future use cases and consider the privacy 
  implications when reusing existing technology.

  Pat Thaler noted that another constraint is that some of these systems 
  have a tight turn-on constraint (e.g. the time from turning the key in 
  a car to the car turning on). In such situations, a fixed 
  configuration is needed because there will not be a lot of time for 
  protocols.

  Ted Hardie observed that device updates are also a concern. If, for 
  example, a smart lightbulb has a long update cycle, it is possible 
  that the manufacturer could disappear between updates, leaving the 
  device with no way to be updated. The larger Internet system is then 
  left with a series of pointers for the entire lifecycle of the device 
  as it was originally deployed.

  At the IAB's IoT Semantic Interoperability Workshop earlier this year, 
  there was a discussion about externally hosted IOT schemas (see 
  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sdo-iot-sync). One thing 
  that would be valuable would be a Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) 
  identifier. There is a draft in OPSAWG (draft-ietf-opsawg-mud) that 
  describes this.  Dan Romascanu noted that it would be helpful to have 
  a tutorial on MUD at the next 802 Plenary meeting.


4.  Approaches to 5G standardization 

  Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/IEEE5G.pdf

  Suresh Krishnan observed that it is not currently clear who owns the 
  "5G" moniker. It will be important for the IETF and IEEE 802 to be 
  aware of what is going on with 5G in other venues. There are also 
  parallel efforts in 3GPP. Suresh suggested setting up a mailing list 
  to help coordinate efforts.

  Slides: https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/16/ec-16-0119-00-5GSG-
  report-ieee-802-ec-5g-imt-2020-sc.pdf

  Glenn Parsons updated the group on 802's 5G/IMT-2020 Standing 
  committee. Four potential Actions were proposed by the Standing 
  Committee:

  1. Action A: Adoption of IEEE 802 Access Network specification in 
     multiple disparate operator networks.
  2. Action B1: IMT-2020 recognition for some 802.11 radio interface.
  3. Action B2: IMT-2020 recognition for several IEEE 802 radio 
     interfaces.
  4. Action B3: 3GPP incorporation of IEEE 802 features, referenced in 
     IMT-2020.

  The Standing Committee has a preference for Action B3, with a 
  secondary desire to progress Action A. Work on Action B3 will be 
  organized by 802.11, with a liaison to 3GPP. Work on Action A will be 
  organized by 802.1's Industry Connections project. Spectrum issues 
  will be handled by 802.18, and joint 802.1/802.11 meetings will be 
  held has necessary for coordination.


5.  Deterministic Networking 

  Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/
  Deterministic-Networking-2016-09-07.pdf

  Norman Finn updated the group on the current status of work on 
  deterministic networking.

  IEEE 802 has the following published standards:

  - IEEE Std™ 802.1Q-2014 Bridges and Bridged Networks
    o Incorporates old 802.1D non-VLAN bridges and all AVB standards
  - IEEE Std 802.1Qbu-2015 Frame Preemption (in bridge) supports
    IEEE Std 803.3br-2016 Interspersing Express Traffic (in MAC)
  - IEEE Std 802.1Qbv-2016 Scheduled Traffic
    o Per-port rotating schedule turns on and off every queue
  - IEEE Std 802.1Qca-2015 Path Control and Reservation
    o Uses ISIS to create multiple paths

  IEEE 802 has the following in-process standards:

  - P802.1CB Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability (SB)
    o Makes use of multiple paths (802.1Q, 802.1Qca)
    o Adds serial tag, or uses IEC 62439-3 HSR tags or PRP trailers
  - P802.1Qcc Stream Reservation Protocol Enhancements (WG)
    o Defines managed objects to allow central control of an enhanced 
      peer-to-peer bandwidth reservation protocol
  - P802.1Qch Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (WG)
    o Lock-step synchronized double buffering provides fixed latency, 
      zero congestion loss
  - P802.1Qci Per-Stream Filtering and Policing (WG)
    o Time-gated input processing supports P802.1Qch CQF, per-flow 
      queues, and robustness against misbehaved transmitters.
  - P802.1CM Time-Sensitive Networking for Fronthaul (TG)
    o Profile for TSN standards for CPRI (Common Public Radio Interface) 
      fronthaul application.
  - P802.1Qcr Asynchronous Traffic Shaping (editor’s drafts)
    o 2-stage hierarchical shaped queues.

  The IETF DetNet Working Group does not have any published RFCs yet, 
  but the following work is in progress:

  - Deterministic Networking Problem Statement 
    (draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement)
    o Adopted by the WG
  - Deterministic Networking Use Cases
    (draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases)
    o Adopted by the WG
  - DetNet Data Plane Protocol and Solution Alternatives
    (draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt)
    o Call for Adoption by WG issued
  - Deterministic Networking Architecture
    (draft-finn-detnet-architecture)
    o Call for Adoption by WG issued

  In addition, there are 5 other independent drafts currently being 
  considered.

  Pat Thaler noted that IEEE 802 has an agreement to make the 802 
  standards available free of charge after 6 months.


6.  802.15.12 upper layer interface

  Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/
  2013/01/15-16-0594-00-0000_IETF-IEEE802-Mtg-802.15.12-
  Update-2016-09-09.pptx

  Bob Heile updated the group on work on IEEE 802.15.12 (Upper Layer 
  Interface).

  802.15.12 Functional Description:

  - Higher Layer Protocol Discrimination Entity (HLPDE)
    o Directs and optionally modifies information from Functional SAP to 
      the appropriate higher layer protocol SAP or another Functional 
      SAP
  - Multiplexed MAC Interface (MMI)
    o Directs and optionally modifies information from Functional SAP to 
      the appropriate MAC SAP or another Functional SAP

  802.1X provides authentication, authorization, and cryptographic key 
  agreement mechanisms to support secure communication between end 
  stations connected to 802 networks.

  802.15.9 (KMP) provides a methodology to enable key management by 
  providing a transport for key management protocols outside the 
  application layers.  Additionally, provides a fragmentation and 
  multiplexing layer for those packets so they can be delivered over 
  smaller MAC layer frames and multiplexed on the recipient end to the 
  right processing service.

  6LoWPAN provides the function of MAC frame modification into a frame 
  format for transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming IPv6 
  link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured addresses on IEEE 
  802.15.4 networks.  Additional functions include a header compression 
  scheme using shared context and provisions for packet delivery in IEEE 
  802.15.4 meshes.

  6tisch functions as an abstraction of an IP link over the TSCH mode of 
  the MAC sublayer by providing network formation and maintenance, 
  multi-hop topology,  assign time source neighbor, resource management, 
  dataflow control, scheduling mechanisms, and security.

  802.15.10 (L2R) provides the following functions: topology 
  construction, L2R mesh discovery/join/update/recovery, hop-by-hop 
  retransmission, unicast/multicast/broadcast routing, data 
  concatenation, short address assignment, and security

  Management protocols provides a Yang modeling interface via the   
  HLPDE-SAP to upper layer applications such as CoAP, CoMI.                
  Additionally, it provides configuration parameters to the MAC and PHY 
  via the MMI-SAP, and may provide configuration parameters to other   
  protocol entities in the ULI.

  The next steps include:

  1. Define the Higher Layer Protocol Discrimination Entity (HLPDE).
  2. Define how the Multiplexed MAC interface (MMI) works using the 
     Multiplexed data service as a baseline.
  3. Define how the management protocols work
     - PHY configuration
     - MAC configuration
     - TG4s coordination efforts
   4. Define how KMP should work within 15.12.
      - Define the KMP SAPs using 802.1X as an example
   5. Define how 6LoWPAN should work within 15.12.
      - Define the 6LO SAPs using IPv6 as an example
   6. Define how L2R should work within 15.12.
      - Define the L2R SAPs using both an endpoint and router as 
        examples
   7. Define how Ranging should work within 15.12
      - Define the RNG SAPs using RFID as example
   8. Define ULI frame mechanism (ULI IE/Payload).
      - Unique identification of ULI presence
      - Compression of higher layer stack and EtherType
      - Other components?

7.  YANG data models in IEEE projects, coordination and support from 
    IETF 

  Benoit Claise reported that the NETMOD WG is working on the VLAN 
  model. He noted that the data models need to be produced quickly, as 
  the industry will not wait for SDOs to provide perfect standards.

  Marc Holness presented a summary of two active YANG projects in 
  progress in 802.1: 802.1Xck (Port-Based Network Access Control 
  Amendment: YANG Data Model) and 802.1Qcp (Bridges and Bridged Networks 
  Amendment: YANG Data Model).

  Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/
  mholness-8021-YANG-Summary.pdf

  Benoit Claise if there is a need for a generic YANG model to do LAG. 
  Marc Holness replied that the current scope of active YANG projects in 
  802.1 does not include LAG, but that they want to make sure that what 
  is put into place will not prevent the graceful introduction of LAG 
  later.

  The IETF will identify a YANG doctor to look at the to 802.1 models 
  once they are ready for Working Group Ballot.


8.  IP Multicast over wireless IP networks 

  Dorothy Stanley reported that Charlie Perkins and Juan Carlos Zuniga 
  are working on a draft of a document that describes the problems 
  people have had deploying multicast of 802.11 networks. Juan Carlos 
  added that the idea was to document the solutions; some are standards-
  based, while others involve configuration or operational solutions. 
  The eventual goal it to progress the document in the IETF INTAREA WG, 
  either as an Informational or BCP RFC.

  At IETF 97, there will be a tutorial that presents the updates made 
  within 802.15, 802.1, and 802.11 since the previous tutorial at IETF 
  95.


9.  Pervasive Monitoring 

  Juan Carlos Zuniga reported that on the IEEE side, there is a PAR in 
  the Task Group, and they have some text for the threat model. As soon 
  as a draft is ready for comments, he will let the group know.

  Stephen Farrell reported that on the IETF side, draft-wkumari-owe-02 
  is the current draft. Stephen has some contacts at Stanford who 
  normally review the security in 802 documents, and he is planning to 
  ask them to take a look at the document. The current plan is to start 
  the IETF Last Call for this document before the end of the year.


10. Copyrights and permissions related to IEEE documents referred by 
    IETF Internet-Drafts 

  Suresh Krishnan reported that the TICTOC WG is working on a MIB that 
  copies text from an 802 document, and they are trying to figure out 
  the copyright rules. The IETF Trust and legal counsel are involved, as 
  are the licensing and risk management folks from 802. Suresh, as the 
  responsible AD, sent a permission request to 802, and when the 
  response comes back he will hand it off to the Trust and the legal 
  counsel to review. He will report back to the group once he has more 
  information.


11. Action items, future meetings and planning work ahead 

  NEW ACTION ITEMS:

  - IETF to give short presentation on MUD in IEEE.

  - Suresh to contact Scott Mansfield (IETF liaison to ITU-T) about 
    IMT2020 and 5G work

  - IETF action item to identify a YANG doctor to review the 2 models 
    being worked on in 802.1 when they come to WG phases

  - All to provide feedback on face to face meeting time.

  - New PARs and approved BOFs to be communicated to the list by October 
    10.

  - Dan Romascanu to send out a Doodle poll to schedule the next virtual 
    meeting in late January or early February.