9:00 Meeting starts Welcome, Agenda Bashing, Minutes taker, Bluesheets, Status - Chairs (10 min) Chairs report: ICNRG interim meetings - Sunday - Luca presented updates from cisco about CICN, - Lixia reported on NDN community meting - Glass-to-glass video distribution - transport API ideas - current status of terminology document; Progressed this week, expect update soon. ICN Harmonization update Discussions this week with people from the different groups, support on all sides to resume harmonization effort Good time to resume harmonization effort. Kicked off last year. First task to understand differences between 2 main designs: NDN and CCNx 1.x. Discuss regularly, what different, why different. A little bit of a slow-down at end of year, but will pick up again. Plan weekly call to follow up; everybody enthusiastic to go further. Goal - finalize differences document before IETF-99 - ICN conference in Berlin. Deadline May 1 (register), May 8 (paper). Two tracks (short/long). + RIOT Summit adjacent to conference. Soon: INFOCOM NOM workshop (Atlanta), ICME MuSIC workshop in July Status of CCNx Drafts NSF/Intel proposal call ICN WEN on ICN and IoT - Eve Schooler (20 min) - Intel backstory: ICN for IoT // debate on how to deploy ICN on the broader Internet. Edges side step this issue. - ICN centers not on sending measurement, but on computer function / analytics. - Intel looking for use-case requirement / to drive. - Some work uses CCNx (early), NDN (later work). Proof-of-concept released by .... - NSF/Intel set aside 6.5M for 2-3 project to award. Focus on wireless edge network, low latency apps, massive deployments. - ICN for 5G+ - Intel interested to evaluate ICN potential for industry solutions, 5G+, ultra-low latency and massive IoT and enabling edge/fog computing Ravi; when you see ICN, do you see CCN or NDN, or others? Eve: we are agnostic, we are not looking for any particular brand Ravi: you said 5G+, you mean more the radio access networks? Or something else? Eve; agnostic, Ravi; any focus on specific application scenarios? Eve; no a bit open, based on use cases Hannu (Nokia); how do you move processing with the data? Eve: billion of devices / dense / sensors /logical entities. As things encounter, they may not know how to comm. they may need to download app/executables. May be through virtualization, etc. First step: how to talk to things you encounter. Experiment with analytics libraries that we make available as service. (?) Vedicker: how far is "this" is for deployment? How usable? Eve: important for open source / publicly available of software, so experimentation can happen now. In edge you don't need to wait for the whole Internet. (?) Vedicker: ultra low latency // IoT at the moment has significant latency. Eve: ramp up academic projects (?) Vedicker: virtual overlay network for a while. we don't have a high latency iot looking for pervasive wireless solutions. I'm grappling with 3 years... (?) Vedicker: Is organization that owns? Eve: Partnership NSF/Intel Brief Description of DARPA SHARE program - Dave Oran (5 mins) - Goal: secure handhelds on assured resilient networks at the tactical Edge - Interesting topics for ICNRG; multi-level secure group keying, differentiated service, strong DTN properties, mobility across both mesh tactical radios and COTS LTE-style radios Dirk: There is also EU .. 2020. closing april 25. ICN in the IoT on RIOT: CCNlite & Pub-Sub - Thomas C. Schmidt (15 min) - Looking at Constrained systems, communication and naming - Added new features to CCN-Lite and Riot, e.g. LoWPAN, Multi-Transceiver/Multi-Stack support - How to publish data efficiently without continued node presence and huge FIBs? New draft on pub/sub: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gundogan-icnrg-pub-iot-00 Jan: in EU greenICN project, published a couple of papers on publish subscibe in ICN. E.g. COPS ??: Question about opportunities. listed 4 properties. which most important property T: depends on perspective. Most important: don't need end-to-end involvement to disseminate / nodes are not online / still want access. For secure apps, secure is most important. ??: these concepts can also be achieved by other technologies, right? Thomas: yes, but it also depends on the easiness. NDN on RIOT - Alex Afanasyev (10 min) - One of the goals; Enable flexible experimentation with NDN IoT apps using RIOT-OS Dave: this is a really good situation, in the process of figuring out the pro's and con's of different architectures it is really good to have both of these stacks running on IoT devices. Update on the ICN in disaster scenarios draft - Jan Seedorf (15 min) ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-disaster/ If you have a paper describing on how ICN is beneficial in these disaster scenarios, authors are open for contributions. Dirk: chair-hat off. With these kind of documents we do not say ICN shines, but state open challenges. Dirk: we need more people looking at this draft, volunteers?. => Eve Schooler, ??, ?? New draft on “Deployment Configurations for ICN” - Akbar Rahman (15 min) ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines/ One point need extra input for RG: charter item for concrete path for deployment of ICN. But not much progress on this topic. In draft: guidelines for operator, for someone looking to deploy network. identify areas that need for standardization. Looking at what guidance for deployment / define what deployment meant. Take ICN, integrate whole internet Deployment: - wholesale replacement (clean slate) - ICN as an overlay (ICN over UDP, names mapped to IPv6 addresses, convergence layer to map ICN semantics to HTTP) - ICN as an underlay (infrastructure islands to integrate IP through Network Attachment points, NAPs; backward compatible introduction) - ICN as a slice (using new concept of network slicing, ICN as virtual functions of service chain) Migration: - app & service - content delivery Soliciting feedback from RG on any other public ICN trials/experiments that we can reference, especially CCN(x). - edge network - core network Summary/Light survey of trials, published results. (Not focused on simulations.) - ICN as Overlay (PURSUIT, SAIL, NDN Testbed) - ICN as an underlay (... Copelabs CDN) Ideas for standardization: - what to do with REST APIs - (4 more listed on slides) - ICN mapping: map bw HTTP and ICN message exchanges + all parameters. Next steps: - need CCNx 1.x examples - draft is useful, need feedback Hannu (nokia): are you proposing // ICN work to split among 6 WG out of 6/5 WGs are new and require BOF. Not realistic Akbar: This is one way to address standardization. What is realistic? Hannu(nokia): a lot of open issues. Still trying to harmonize. Now you're proposing split even more. No way we can consolidate .. At this point of time realistic approach to stay in a single place Akbar: If it is single place, should be IETF. ICNRG going to do experimental draft. If influence protocol, have to be in IETF. Single BOF, big effort, etc. Not today Hannu (nokia) For strong industry impact, have to be IETF. From what we see, ICN is not for prime time, not ready for WG. Ravi: One section .. name-based routing. One section .. section for privacy discussion. How to scale it. Akbar: Agree Prakash (Cisco): Good document. Trying to encompass whole ICN, many areas to cover. More context to document.. 2nd point: ICN as a slice -- iCN not creating is slice. Slice created to support ICN. Slice capable of ICN. 3rd: (...) Ravi: One section should address privacy discussion, e.g. advertising name context into the network. How do you scale this thing? Prakash: good document. Scope of the document too broad I think. Dave: chair hat off: 1. document doing 2 things, identifying gaps in protocols and barriers to deployments. Second is how to structure the gaps to fill to enable deployment, but needs new research. Maybe split the work. 2. one of the things missing, how do you want to use ICN to deploy ICN. Now we use all these IP tools to setup ICN networks. So should think about how to bootstrap ICN natively. 3. your HTTP mapping point, I am co-author of published paper on that. (Ilya Moiseenko, Mark Stapp, David Oran, “Communication Patterns for Web Interaction in Named Data Networking,” DOI: 10.1145/2660129.2660152 Conference: ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking, Paris, France, 2014 ) Alex: one thing that is missing is about security. In ICN fundamental thing. How to do that especially for these deployment, huge thing. Should be somewhere in a document. Requirements and Challenges for IoT over ICN - Ravi Ravindran (15 min)​ ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot/ - Recap of draft history - A lot of changes in draft, highlight of changes. - Next steps: further improve comments; hope to adopt as RG document to solicit more comments & get help from community to improve draft Borje: Who has read the draft (not that many). Should do it! ICN become one of the important research topic / need to collect basic issues, capabilities of these combinations. If people better ideas they are welcome. Really like more comments on this draft, on mailing list to move forward. Any volunteer (Eve, Prakash, Borje) Borje: There was thing-to-thing discussion. They will write up, can be taken as inspiration. Missing - when have large amount of data that large beyond putting cloud. Ravi: we have challenges in section 3, partly covers this but should add more Contrace: Traceroute Facility for Content-Centric Network - Hitoshi Asaeda (10 min) ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-asaeda-icnrg-contrace/ Today discuss security, as last time overview was given of protocol and architecture. - Recap of the proposed protocol; New request message, new reply message. - Security consideration > policy based; routers can prohibit reply. > permission: all, partial, deny > topology discovery > characteristics of content > reply timeout > request rates > adjacency verification Drafts don't define specific security mechanisms. Can be mentioned in separate drafts... Dirk: you said really useful, software available? Hitoshi: Yes, in near future Alex: what is relation with Cisco work? Hitoshi: ICNtrace is more on FIB, this works both on FIB and CS Alex: could Dave comment on the ICN-ping draft? Dave: We have the ICN-ping drafts, but no one to present Spyros Mastorakis ("out of band" comment): Could IETF/IRTF provide some funding for students that have IDs to attend the meetings? The reason that nobody is there to present ping and traceroute is funding. A Phd student cannot afford to pay for airfare and lodging out of his own pocket.... Alex: why needs it to be a separate message. Why not application on each forwarder? Hitoshi: This is specific demo, so this a specific implementation. Alex: this is part of interest and data message, why new type? Each app new Hitoshi: special type of message, otherwise stuff gets aggregated Alex: you now only mention the security issues, but not address them. huwaii??: looks more like ping or traceroute than inband telemetry. Hitoshi: following traditional traceroute Huawii: interested in in-band? Hitoshi: yes DaveO: chair hat off, 1. one of the reasons for separate type of packet is because of interest aggregation. The right way to do that is separate indication in interest message, e.g. nonce. Important to see more justification. 2. a lot of commonality between this and icn-traceroute draft (draft-mastorakis-icnrg-icntraceroute-01). Nice to see like an overview of the commonalities and differences DaveO: chair hat on; this is part of getting the management instrumentation of ICN going. Important area, so would be good to look into the inband measurement related tools. Challenges in Networking to Support Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality - Cedric Westphal (15 min) ​https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~cedric/papers/westphal2017challenges.pdf - Overview, use cases of AR/VR requirements; Network impact (bandwidth, delay - ICN - network architecture that exposes semantics to network layer, native mcast, content distribution, edge caching and edge functions - Overview of research challenges Dirk: big interest. Do you want a draft on this Cedrick: yes, porting paper into draft. Deploying Information Centric Networking in LTE Mobile Networks - Prakash Suthar (5 min) ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suthar-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/ Out of time :( During Prague meeting organizing full Sunday interim and regular meeting during the week. Also interim in conjunction with ACM ICM in Berlin.