PANRG Agenda IETF 110
When: 15:30 - 16:30 UTC+1/14:30 - 15:30 UTC, Thu March 11th, 2021
Where: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf110/?group=panrg&short=&item=1
Chairs: Jen Linkova and Brian Trammell
Minutes Taker: Jake Holland
Jabber Scribe: Brian Trammell
Jabber: panrg@jabber.ietf.org


Time (UTC+1) Length What Who
15:30 5m Welcome, Note Well, Agenda Chairs
15:35 5m Updates on draft-irtf-panrg-questions B.Trammell

    *   definition of path is a good question from list. discuss where it belongs after path properties.

15:40 5m Updates on draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do S. Dawkins

    *    Brian, re “better way than just 1 chance?”: maybe “one chance per 2 decades”
    *    Gorry: maybe “one chance per equipment lifetime”. Will read it and send proper comments
    *    Martin: is this actionable?
    *    Spencer: maybe something like broadening the tests you run, thinking outside the box
    *    Colin: +1 on “per equipment lifecycle”, and can it say something about structured testing? When deploying again, they did it in incremental way while working with the operators.
    *    Spencer: good point, and also makes sense to consider what’s changed
    *    Gorry: measure before and test gently during initial deployment. If they’d seen it early on they would have fixed it.
    *    Eric Kinnear: to “actionable” point: fallback strategy and end-user pain mitigation is also key to solving it vs. turning it off.
    *    Kireeti Kompella: +1 to Eric’s “fallback plan”, +1 to Colin and Spencer’s response, but also generations are sometimes smaller now with faster OS updates and microcode, might be smaller than 10 years per generation for some cases. Plus, it’s not just “something went wrong” but also taste left in your mouth when it went wrong makes you reluctant to retry
    *    Jake: one protocol perhaps mistake to consider is ECT(1)==ECT(0) instead of NECT (do what you were doing before, instead of do a new thing equivalent to the new thing for an unused codepoint). Would have smoothed things for ongoing later attempt to extend.

15:45 15m A Vocabulary of Path Properties (draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties) T. Enghardt, C. Krähenbühl

    *    Brian: good starting point, make sure service chaining vs. endpoint services is clear for service invocation (here we’re talking about service chaining). This doc has the problem of context overload for all the terms.
    *    Jake: Will send an email, there are a couple of maybe-examples.
    *    Brian: do we want the questions draft to have a standing forward reference to the properties draft or do we want to finish questions doc and point only to an abbreviated early version of properties.
    *    Theresa: path properties has an answer to the questions draft. We should be able to publish the question’s draft without the properties.
    *    Brian: Thanks, will follow up in a reply to Adrian’s message to the list.
    *    Spencer: what-not-to-do no longer has normative reference to questions’ definition of “path”
    *    Med (from chat): Could just copy/paste the definition of path to remove dependency. (Brian and Theresa: +1 each)

16:00 5m Path properties for space-terrestrial networks (draft-zheng-panrg-path-properties-istn) Shaowen Zheng

    *    discussion to list due to technical audio difficulties

16:05 10m draft-garciapardo-panrg-drkey Juan A. García-Pardo

    *    discussion to list for time considerations

16:15 10m On the subject of trustworthiness S. Dawkins

    *    Brian: we should do an interim before IETF 111. Probably in May.

16:25 5m Gateway trust relationship (draft-du-panrg-gateway-based-trust-relationship) Zongpeng Du

    *    discussion to list, out of time.

Jen & Brian: will schedule an interim targeting mid-late May/early June, scheduling poll to follow on list.