IETF 111 DTN working group meeting Monday 2021-07-26 19:00 - 21:00 (UTC) Co-chairs: Rick Taylor, Ed Birrane Name Shorthands: - 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFkSylvDOYs Agenda ===== - Admin, Chairs, 10 mins. cRT: - Welcome all! Introductions and what not. - Agenda overview, administivia notes - Please help with the minutes! - Main activities on mailing list, please subscribe. - Discussion of Working Group Rechartering, 20 mins. (Ed Birrane) cEB: - 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 cRT: - Alternative methods of relability as a light weight version of custody transfer? - Worth being more generic item instead of explicit? SB: - 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 cRT: - So work on bundle reliability SB: - Feli idea is more about signalling cRT: - So sounds no interest in BPv6 custody transfer and trying to forward port to BPv7 cEB: - Good ppoint. Not removed from ecosystem SB: - another other relability tcl like v4 would accomplish same thing cRT: - disagree, a reliable CL would across one hop, but end-to-end without knowing CLs between you SB: - 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 cRT: - Remove "Custody Transfer" as loaded with BPv6 conotation in WG OG: - ??? RT: - Use case is one DTN should be addressing - BPv6 CT had known problems - New methods to perform same actions FT: - Coming in late. What was verdict on LTP? cEB: - No. CCSDS wants to standardize and in their charter. cRT: - If another SDO wants to do work fine - Very space focused FT: - Also seeing apps in terresterial domain - Vaible in disrupted envirorments cRT: - FT do you have a draft for this? I think so FT: - ??? cRT: - Builds on top of LPT implementation - BPv7 and bringing LPT would be willing - Do we need to laison with CCSDS? cEB: - How much work would it be for a CL for LPT in this WG? cRT: - Split problem in two. CCSDS, go for it. We will focus on CL using LPT as underlying protocol. SB: - 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 cRT: - 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 cEB: - Covered very well. - As we adopt drafts its to map things in charter cRT: - We missed key management. - SB, FT do you have cycles or willing to pass? SB: - Very invested in WG takes it up FT: - Also shares interest cRT: - Very happy to peer review - Made note of that. - BPSec default security context update, 10 mins (Ed Birrane) EB: - 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 adZS: - Sorry for being late! - Working to catch up cRT: - Thanks to all reviewers! EB: - CDDL with unadorned CBOR sequences ??? - Tons of work, thanks everyone who helped. - BPSec security policy, 20 mins. (Sarah Heiner) SH: - 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? OG: - Processing this on bundle not the content of the bundle? SH: - Some processing of contents, representation of security blocks; mainly to see if they exists or not OG: - My concern: stucture should be complete and trustful cRT: - What I think Sarah is doing is this: bundle contains metadata + payload - Her work is focusing on metadata portion SH: - Event Sets, hold multiple events - Naming allows them to be cited - Processing actions - slide 11; left column is Events, all others are Actions cRT: - Bundle/block manipulation means? - Editing in flight? SH: - 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 cRT: - Thank you! Fascinating. - Is policy in-band or out of band? - Have you considered if policy be attached to bundle? SH: - Hybrid approach to policy - Some on node, some as parametersin security block - Need to take some data going through bundle cRT: - Genrealize beyond sec. policy? AMP, ADM system as management? - Avoid corruption or misconfiguration SH: - Would be useful - there are other directions to take this. OG: - interfacing, thank you! cEB: - informational rfc? normative? - Can it be generalized to be used by many implementations? - What is future of this work for WG? cRT: - If this is WG item, what is it standardizing? - Hybrid solution is normative - Charter items, feature creep... SB: - Same feeling, if required spec of protocol between interoperable implementations protocol spec would be straight forward - Information RFC seems best cRT: - We do standardize best practice documents - This could be considered best practice for DTNs - Take discussion to list? cEB: - If it standards and enumarates things IANA? Would informational RFC allow this? cRT: - Jumping the gun! - If links to ADN then it is on charter! EB: - That is brilliant, thank you! cRT: - "I am not brilliant, don't call me that" - Asynchronous Management Architecture, 15 mins (James Annis) JA: - "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)? cRT: - This sounds little bit like reopen AMA document, take out of WGLC, to revist more than just management of network cEB: - This is one comment that came out of WGLC. Simply remove network and doesn't change much. cRT: - Preempt ZS: Yes, we have been around NETMOD, NETCONF and have had no interest. adZS: - Mind read == Mind blown. - Want to look at bigger scope, this has to go through some more things cRT: - We are happy to. adZS: - if beyond DTN, this has to go couple place again cEB: - 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 adZS: - If you want to open up here thats fine but need to cross-check cEB: - Understood cRT: - Can it be fixed without removing it out of last call? JA: - Here and ready. Clarifcations mostly. cRT: - 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 - URI/URN conventions for Asynchronous Management Data Model, 15 mins (James Annis) JA: - 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 cEB: - if we want to register uri schema, then would we produce small graph? cRT: - registering scheme is easy - ADM section should include uri spec? stand alone seems strange OG: - ??? cEB: - Take to mailing list. cRT: - Agree. Need to review some things (YANG, NETCONF) - IPNSIG Pilot Working Group update, 20 mins (Oscar Garcia, Ronny Bull) OG: - 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... cRT: - Very interesting! - Any other business / Open Mic, 10 mins cRT: - Anything? BS: - 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 RT: - WebPack, bundling HTTP requests together, suggest poking head in - Might be looking for transport to move bundles... cEB: - Thanks everyone! cRT: - 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."