IETF 111 DTN working group meeting
Monday 2021-07-26 19:00 - 21:00 (UTC)
Co-chairs: Rick Taylor, Ed Birrane
- AD Zaheduzzaman Sarker == adZS
- Rick Taylor == RT
- Rick Taylor (Chair) == cRT
- Ed Birrane == EB
- Ed Birrane (Chair) == cEB
- Adam Wiethuechter == AW
- Adam Wiethuechter (Secretary) == sAW
- Scott Burleigh == SB
- Oscar Garcia == OG
- Sarah Heiner == SH
- James Annis == JA
- Brian Sipos == BS
Official YT Recording:
- Welcome all! Introductions and what not.
- Agenda overview, administivia notes
- Please help with the minutes!
- Main activities on mailing list, please subscribe.
- Spent first half on interim trying to lay out next work for recharter
- Break things into categories to help explain to many why several things would not overwhelm those involved
- DTNRG items for refresh, Extensions to new work, New algos/protocols
- Best guess, can change with reviews
- Break down of tasks based on these categories
- DTNRG: LTP would be worked on by CCSDS, custody transfer
- Will not solve Naming and Addressing; can be 20 year long task
- Anyone have anything to add
- Alternative methods of relability as a light weight version of custody transfer?
- Worth being more generic item instead of explicit?
- Term and concept from JPL ages ago
- As the data makes way through network each forwarding point would say, you can let it go ill take it from here - it works from end to end
- BPv6 used by ????
- Seperate but not in conflict, aggregated status reports
- Suggest custody transfer as a work item would be avoided instead focus on concept
- So work on bundle reliability
- Feli idea is more about signalling
- So sounds no interest in BPv6 custody transfer and trying to forward port to BPv7
- Good ppoint. Not removed from ecosystem
- another other relability tcl like v4 would accomplish same thing
- disagree, a reliable CL would across one hop, but end-to-end without knowing CLs between you
- Multihop problem is mission creep for custody transfer
- If you don't know who gets how do you set things?
- Concern is what is requirements and how to be addressed
- Remove "Custody Transfer" as loaded with BPv6 conotation in WG
- Use case is one DTN should be addressing
- BPv6 CT had known problems
- New methods to perform same actions
- Coming in late. What was verdict on LTP?
- No. CCSDS wants to standardize and in their charter.
- If another SDO wants to do work fine
- Very space focused
- Also seeing apps in terresterial domain
- Vaible in disrupted envirorments
- FT do you have a draft for this? I think so
- Builds on top of LPT implementation
- BPv7 and bringing LPT would be willing
- Do we need to laison with CCSDS?
- How much work would it be for a CL for LPT in this WG?
- Split problem in two. CCSDS, go for it. We will focus on CL using LPT as underlying protocol.
- Likes that idea a lot. Using LPT to support BP CL belongs here.
- Fine to take on LPT standardization, but would be tricky with CCSDS interactions
- Suggests the split as RT pointed to
- Comments on other things on charter?
- Added Neighbor Discovery, Service IDs merged into Naming/Addressing
- Anything else to include?
- They will be focus on WG, any other I.D.s not in scope could be ignored
- Covered very well.
- As we adopt drafts its to map things in charter
- We missed key management.
- SB, FT do you have cycles or willing to pass?
- Very invested in WG takes it up
- Also shares interest
- Very happy to peer review
- Made note of that.
- Pacakge of documents ofr standardization of BPv7
- In course of review, requested to have default security contexts
- Started to interopability ones, to be defaults
- Coming out of IESG review
- Vast amount of changes most for reader understanding, non-technical
- Needed to be more specific with some security things
- Sorry for being late!
- Working to catch up
- Thanks to all reviewers!
- CDDL with unadorned CBOR sequences ???
- Tons of work, thanks everyone who helped.
- Hello! I work at JH APL
- Next steps for BPsec
- Need to develop security policy and its architecture
- Design principles
- Needs semantic and syntactic interop
- Need to be effecient, due to constraints
- Block granularity
- Node customability
- Data model
- Security policy rules; filter, spec, event
- Operation Events; are there any missing?
- Processing this on bundle not the content of the bundle?
- Some processing of contents, representation of security blocks; mainly to see if they exists or not
- My concern: stucture should be complete and trustful
- What I think Sarah is doing is this: bundle contains metadata + payload
- Her work is focusing on metadata portion
- Event Sets, hold multiple events
- Naming allows them to be cited
- Processing actions
- slide 11; left column is Events, all others are Actions
- Bundle/block manipulation means?
- Editing in flight?
- In next slide. WE modify bundle transmission or its contents
- Blocks are modifying block procssing
- Data generation: for later analysis
- Comments on processing actions?
- Initial implementation in ION
- APL added in 4.0.2 release
- Thank you! Fascinating.
- Is policy in-band or out of band?
- Have you considered if policy be attached to bundle?
- Hybrid approach to policy
- Some on node, some as parametersin security block
- Need to take some data going through bundle
- Genrealize beyond sec. policy? AMP, ADM system as management?
- Avoid corruption or misconfiguration
- Would be useful - there are other directions to take this.
- interfacing, thank you!
- informational rfc? normative?
- Can it be generalized to be used by many implementations?
- What is future of this work for WG?
- If this is WG item, what is it standardizing?
- Hybrid solution is normative
- Charter items, feature creep...
- Same feeling, if required spec of protocol between interoperable implementations protocol spec would be straight forward
- Information RFC seems best
- We do standardize best practice documents
- This could be considered best practice for DTNs
- Take discussion to list?
- If it standards and enumarates things IANA? Would informational RFC allow this?
- Jumping the gun!
- If links to ADN then it is on charter!
- That is brilliant, thank you!
- "I am not brilliant, don't call me that"
- "Almost like Zoom!"
- AMA concept is in work today, open source and commercial, push through next step
- Review AMA; manager send controls to agents and waits for reports back
- Where we are today:
- went through WGLC, could it be more?
- What do we do to do this?
- AMA for IoT in smart city
- Scope function of autonomy
- Federate control (actor to actor)?
- This sounds little bit like reopen AMA document, take out of WGLC, to revist more than just management of network
- This is one comment that came out of WGLC. Simply remove network and doesn't change much.
- Preempt ZS: Yes, we have been around NETMOD, NETCONF and have had no interest.
- Mind read == Mind blown.
- Want to look at bigger scope, this has to go through some more things
- We are happy to.
- if beyond DTN, this has to go couple place again
- When outside of DTN we talk about application on ethernet
- When we talk to others its so different, they would rather provide review after the face
- If you want to open up here thats fine but need to cross-check
- Can it be fixed without removing it out of last call?
- Here and ready. Clarifcations mostly.
- Do you a deal.
- Freeze call on AMA, review/fix and reopen LC nice and long
- Last of current charter items needed to be done
- To make this work is addressing objects in network and parameters in network. Many different ADMs for each agent
- Extract and address in new rfc how to ....
- Both drafts say should be done, but not how
- Need to represent namespaces and nicknames
- if we want to register uri schema, then would we produce small graph?
- registering scheme is easy
- ADM section should include uri spec? stand alone seems strange
- Take to mailing list.
- Agree. Need to review some things (YANG, NETCONF)
- IPNSIG group lead
- Working with several topics.
- Ronny Bull of Utica College has been helping
- Working on a test plan starting Sept. 2020
- Review of recent accomplishments...
- Requirements and goals...
- Very interesting!
- Status on ACME, last week passed AD review
- points on URI naming and issues with admin type record
- AD not happy with info rfc updating sdt rfc
- WebPack, bundling HTTP requests together, suggest poking head in
- Might be looking for transport to move bundles...
- Thanks everyone!
- Lots of interesting topics, lets get charter done
- Will work with ZS to get signed off and sealed
- Thanks everyone!
- "I now declare this meeting over."