LMAP WG Interim Meeting
Date and Time: Monday December 15, 2014, noon EST
Chairs: Dan Romascanu, Jason Weil

Based on notes taken by Barbara Stark

Meeting Materials: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/12/15/lmap/proceedings.html

Agenda http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/12/15/lmap/agenda/agenda-interim-2014-lmap-2

1. Note Well, Note Takers, Jabber Scribes, Agenda Bashing - Chairs (5 min)
 2. WG Status - Chairs (5 min) 
3. Use Case document in IESG review: input from Benoit and discussions (30 min) 
4. LMAP Framework - edit proposals to solve AD comments: Al Morton (20 min) 5. LMAP Information Model - Trevor, Phil: discuss proposals presented at IETF-91 (30 min) 
6. Protocol Selection Criteria - Barbara, Tim (30 min) 
7. Next steps
----
Use Case Document: 
Look at Discuss comments.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/current/msg01925.html

Discussion of Pete Resnick Discuss (msg01925). 
Action Item: Frode is to rewrite the regulatory use case to reverse the order in which aspects of the use case are introduced and reduce the amount of political motivation mentioned. Pass it by Pete before bringing it to the wider audience.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/current/msg01926.html

Discussion of Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss (msg01926) 
Phil Eardley described his resolution of Kathleen's points. 
Kathleen needs to see resolutions and state whether they are acceptable.
----

LMAP Framework Document:
Phil described changes to framework draft from -08 to -09 version to address Benoit's AD comments, Radia's security review comments, and comments from Dublin discussion.
Aamer Akhter will be providing some review.
Need to identify what's missing at this time. It's unclear. Need to talk further with Benoit to understand. Benoit to organize a meeting with himself, chairs, and framework editors. Anyone else who wants to contribute will be welcome. Benoit will find a time with chairs and editors and then invite all.
----
Phil was not prepared to discuss information-model
----
Tim Carey presented slides on criteria for protocol selection.
Change "ensure interoperability" to "test interoperability"
Tim and Barbara to create IETF draft of these criteria. This will allow for proper WG review.
Alissa had comments regarding meaning of requirement regarding security. Per Tim, encryption and authentication through use of information-model certificates. What about confidentiality? Read RFC 3552. 
Marcelo mentioned there is a difference in supporting certificates from MA vs. Controller side. Complexity of MA certificates may not be mandatory, but could differentiate. It may be enough to say the protocols need to support the security features described in the framework document, as the mandatory aspect, and allow other aspects to differentiate.
Need to understand which aspects of security are mandatory and which are optional.
----

Next Interim: Dan will set up Doodle poll to schedule another meeting on a day during the first 2 weeks of February.