INTAREA (IETF 124) meeting minutes
Juan Carlos Zúñiga (JCZ) goes to the chair slides and bashes the agenda.
JCZ covers the WG status update (2 new WG items). IESG requires now at
least 5 reviews to progress documents in WGLC (2 documents are in this
state now).
Éric Vyncke (EV) adds on the value of the reviews of WG documents.
Bill Fenner (BF) asks if the documents pending to get the 5 reviews are
still in WGLC state or a new call will be sent.
JCZ clarifies that is OK to provide reviews now.
Tommy Pauly (TP): are the 5 required reviews cumulative on the different
WGLC that a document might have.
EV: it's cumulative, unless the document changes completely.
Bob Hinden (BH): is 5 a magical number?
EV: this is to avoid situations (that has happened in the past) wih
documents with 3 authors getting 3 yes from the authors in the WGLC.
JCZ: 3 documents finished WGLC and 1 in IESG review.
EV: On this last one, draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len, there was
discussion on how to deploy the mechanisms without breaking what is
already there. The understanding is that there is a big issue (one of
the authors think so, while the others no). EV recommends to unadopt the
document and if some of the authors think it should be adopted, do
another call for adoption.
Nate Karstens (NK) presents the slides (remotely).
Dave Thaler (DT) thanks for responding to his e-mail and discussing on
two possible approaches to solve some of his pending comments.
NK replies that he will look into what has been said on the mailing list
and ask some additional clarifying questions to DT on host firewalls. He
says that the conversation will continue on the mailing list.
Fan Zhang (FZ) presents the slides (remotely).
No comments.
JCZ requests feedback to the WG on the mailing list and ask the authors
to trigger discussion.
EV, out of curiosity, asks the room who has read the draft. 3, 4 hands
are raised.
Greg White (GW) presents the slides.
Richard Patterson (RP): concern about IP fragmentation. also consider a
mention of stateful translators like CG-NAT.
JCZ: is your intention to provide guidance only or do some quantitive
analysis?
GW: yes, experimental data is welcome.
EV: nice you talked to TSVWG yesterday. Do they want to adopt? This
document is between two areas. Typically what is done is that is adopted
in one, and then WGLC and reviews is extended to both.
BH: this is not a new problem. The customer of this WG is other groups
that do L2 things.
GW: yes and no. Having better guidance in term of much reordering links
micht create is useful.
EV: to reply BH. Internet Area not only does L3 but layers below. So
this might be the home for this.
Rüdiger Volk (RV): comment on real life experience from 29 years ago of
the impact of reordering fragments.
Ron Bonica (RB): BH said that the centre of the problem is the transport
layer and this also include UDP.
Item 5 not presented at the originally scheduled time, moved to the end.
Madhan Sankaranarayanan (MS) presents the slides (remotely)
BF: are you familiar with the draft ICPM extendo node ID, as it seems it
does exactly what you are proposing. There is a companion document also
that allows a v4 v7 translator to include the address of a V6 node in an
underlay to the ICPM message.
MS will take a look at the document.
XX from BT: the crucial update mentioned in slide 7 is useful. I do feel
that we want to limit the ICMP options that you want to send.
David Lamparter (DL) presents the slides.
Lorenzo Coletti (LC): lots of discussion in the past in the IETF. You
shouldn't communicate a next hop in a protocol that has no update
strategy.
EV (no hat): the basic assumption is that the DHCP router/relay is a
router.
EV (no hat): what is the added value of this?
DL: to avoid having v4 in your core routers.
EV (no hat): I'm not conviced of this.
XX:
Tim Wicinski (TC) presents the slides (remotely).
TC states that he is working on an IPR to be filed.
Stuart Cheshire (SC): whaat makes us sume that the malware is going to
say that it's going something that is not expected to do.
TC: default is to block. It can be renegotiated through and
administrative portal.
Ted Lemon (TL): have you looked at MUD management descriptions?
Remco van Mook (RvM) present the slides (remotely).
DL: slide 9, this is something I don't whant to do.
JCZ: how many people have read the draft? Around 6/7 people. JCZ
encourages people to read the draft and continue the discussion.
Krzysztof Szarkowicz (KS) presents the slides.
JCZ adjourns the meeting at 13:00.