Monday 20 July 2026
07:00 (UTC)/ 09:00 (Vienna)
2 hours
Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf126/?session=35509
Notes: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-126-iotops
Chairs: Alexey Melnikov and Henk Birkholz
Note taker: Christian Amsüss
(5 mins; chairs)
AM doing introductions
draft-ietf-iotops-ol
(10 mins; Eliot Lear)
slides
EL presenting.
EL, summarizing: Document is stupid simple, should do WGLC and be done
with it.
AM: Why not; will talk. Think we can do it shortly. Will need some
reviews, even "it's fine".
Review volunteers: JM
(10 mins; Eliot Lear)
slides
EL presenting.
EL: Your opportunity for "what is good, what is bad, what needs to
change, what would improve adoption".
EL: Please read it, think about it, will suggest WGA around IETF127, no
need to rush.
EL: Prefer more authors and to be Editor.
HB (from floor): Guidance to "How to just do a simple MUD file" would be
good.
EL: Easiest is to go https://mudmaker.org/ and dump pcap files in. Will
follow up on-list.
draft-ietf-iotops-security-summary-03
(5 mins; Jim Mozley)
slides
JM presenting for BM.
CB (~p4): Landscape is moving all the time. Should write in that we look
at those 3 sets of requirements (from different organizations), later
document can work on 2 more. Otherwise, never finishes.
AM: If we had "living standards" in IETF… but can snapshot, and prepare
-bis.
HT: With AI, summarizing 3 documents is easy. Is goal still the same?
There were 1000s of recommendations summarized already.
HT: Also, now there is CRA that has new requirements.
JM: Objective is not summary of requirements and intent, but give
manufacturers guidance on how to meed those requirements.
AM (hat off): It's a roadmap, "if you have these requirements and those
threat models, look at these IETF or other documents".
AM: With CB and HT feedback, probably not publish now. Alternative to
breaking it up is having authors responsible for sections (editorial
decision).
JM: People willing to contribute to move forward? Will ask on list.
draft-ietf-iotops-iot-dns-guidelines-03
(20 mins; Jim Mozley)
slides
JM presenting.
CB (p5): RFC9953, written to solve many of these problems (or "not
create them in the first place"). Good idea to mention this.
MSL: Postpone to after my talk.
(15+5 mins; Martine Sophie Lenders)
slides
MSL presenting.
(aimed at T2TRG but moved here)
CA: of those 296 options, which are realistic to recommend to
iot-dns-guidelines audiences?
ML: DoC, transaction ID randomization, last-block padding
JM: obvious step would be to put this into draft we have. Not sure which
level of detail.
HT: Student working around IPsec on IPDFS (?), trying to find what is in
IPsec tunnel. Conclusion was that padding didn't help – bummer. Machine
learning find that data anyway.
HT: My conclusion from there was: No things exist that can be done
easily, if you care. But few people care anyway.
draft-dsmullen-ppd-architecture/draft-dsmullen-ppd-taxonomy
(15 mins; Daniel Smullen)
slides
DS presenting
DS: Looking for broad discussion on architectural scope, assumptions,
model, including outside household setups. Find me on the hallway.
JM: Fascinating. Interaction w/ regulatory framework?
DS: European law might be encoded for all households; different in other
regions. Might also come from vendor automatically, and resolve
conflicts. Enforcement is not baked in.
HT: As manufacturer, how would I make my product work with this?
DS: Baseline is "nothing", household could conceivably ban of
segment-off baseline devices. To be open to receive policy, reference
implementation exists and registers with endpoint on household network,
declaring compliance, receiving policy and send own policy.
draft-ietf-iotops-mud-acceptable-urls
(5 mins; Michael)
(not presented)
DS: Demo on protocol impl, no side meeting set up.
(Session ends, but DS coming back with demo)