Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 101
5 February 2018

Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat

Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki 
(https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/).

ATTENDEES 
--------------------------------- 
Jari Arkko / IAB
Alia Atlas / Routing Area
Ignas Bagdonas / Incoming Operations and Management Area 
Ben Campbell / Applications and Real-Time Area
Benoit Claise / Operations and Management Area
Alissa Cooper / IETF Chair, General Area
Spencer Dawkins / Transport Area
Liz Flynn / IETF Secretariat
Ted Hardie / IAB Chair
Joe Hildebrand / IAB
Lee Howard / IAB
Benjamin Kaduk / Incoming Security Area
Suresh Krishnan / Internet Area
Mirja Kuehlewind / Transport Area
Warren Kumari / Operations and Management Area
Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area
Gabriel Montenegro / IAB
Cindy Morgan / IETF Secretariat 
Kathleen Moriarty / Security Area
Erik Nordmark / IAB
Mark Nottingham / IAB
Eric Rescorla / Security Area
Alvaro Retana / Routing Area
Adam Roach / Applications and Real-Time Area
Melinda Shore / Incoming IAB
Robert Sparks / IAB 
Martin Thomson / IAB
Amy Vezza / IETF Secretariat
Martin Vigoureux / Incoming Routing Area
Suzanne Woolf / IAB

REGRETS 
---------------------------------

Deborah Brungard / Routing Area
Mat Ford / ISOC
Christian Huitema / Incoming IAB
Terry Manderson / Internet Area
Allison Mankin / IRTF Chair
Stephanie McCammon / IETF Secretariat
Jeff Tantsura / IAB
Brian Trammell / IAB

APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA

NONE

GENERAL AREA
 
o IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0 (IASA20)
  Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper

Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed BoF, noting that this continues the work of previous BoF sessions. The ISOC legal team is expected to provide information for the community discussion before IETF 101.

Mirja Kuehlewind asked if there was movement toward chartering a working group.

Alissa replied that she'd like to have the scope of the work narrowed down before chartering; the information from the legal team should help with that.

Ted Hardie asked whether the group would still meet if the information from the legal team arrived too late to have a useful discussion in London. 

Alissa noted that she was in contact with the lawyers via email, and she expects something for the community to discuss soon. She added that even if the memo from the legal team was late, the BoF would still be useful.

The BoF was approved for IETF 101.

INTERNET AREA

o IP Issues and Associated Gaps in Fifth Generation Networks (ATICK)
  Responsible AD: Terry Manderson

Suresh Krishnan introduced the proposed BoF. He noted that this is the 5GANGIP subject that has had numerous side meetings at the IETF in the past year. He mentioned concerns that the scope was too broad, and that the proposal hasnÕt improved enough. The mailing list for discussion is still 5GANGIP, not ATICK.

Spencer Dawkins noted that there had been a lot of interest at previous side meetings, and wanted to know if that was still the case.

Suresh replied that the interest seemed to be waning; there were half the number of people at the last side meeting than at the first.

Alissa Cooper asked about discussing better-scoped work with the proponents.

Suresh stated that he had a discussion about scoping the work for the IETF, but hasnÕt seen any changes in the request. He asked Erik Nordmark and Jari Arkko from the IAB if they would be willing to discuss narrowing the focus for the IETF with the proponents.

Erik agreed to initiate a discussion.

Alissa requested Suresh relay the discuss points back to Terry Manderson.

The proposed BoF was not approved for IETF 101.


o Identifier Locator Addressing (ILA)
   Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan

Suresh Krishnan introduced the proposed BoF. He mentioned ILA came out of a datacenter, and the BoF is set to explore whether the idea can scale beyond a datacenter. He noted that the protocol is not fully formed, and there is a lot of work to be done. Suresh also noted that the idea has been in both the Internet Area and Routing area. He thought a non-WG forming BoF would be appropriate, but that it would need some careful handling.

Ted Hardie agreed that it would need strong chairs to keep focus on the work.

Jari Arkko mentioned there were two basic pieces of work, privacy and scalability; one piece might be more suited for a research group.

Alia Atlas requested that the IDR WG be added to the conflict list. She was unsure that this would be a widely-used solution to the problem.

Suresh answered that it wasnÕt certain the work could scale yet. It might be a fit as a research group instead, but holding the BoF would help to answer that.

The BoF was approved for IETF 101.

OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREA

o Common Operations and Management on network Slices (COMS)
  Responsible AD: Benoit Claise

Benoit Claise introduced the proposed BoF. He mentioned this proposal came out of the NETSLICING BoF held at IETF 99. The proponents are looking at developing a top-down approach to the issue, which may be simplistic. Benoit noted that the proposed BoF was not approved for IETF 100, and the proponents may not have developed the idea any further than requested to get a BoF on the agenda.

Warren Kumari agreed with BenoitÕs assessment.

Eric Rescorla observed that the Area Directors did not seem enthusiastic about the proposal. He asked what they wanted to do.

Benoit replied that the discussions would take place, either in a BoF or in other working groups. He noted he would prefer to have the BoF, and be prepared for a charter with a very narrow focus if the BoF goes well. Benoit added that it would be good to take one use case and use a bottom-up approach in addition to the top-down approach.

Jari Arkko added that a BoF might help define the bigger picture of what work there is to be done, and that might help narrow the scope.

Benoit agreed that the scope is currently too broad. He doesnÕt expect this BoF to be working group forming.

Jari warned that it might be difficult to secure agreement on an approach.

Benoit suggested the BoF take one use case as an experiment and work the problem both bottom up and top down. He feared that using just one approach would be too simplistic and would not work. Limiting the work to one use case might narrow the scope enough.

Suresh agreed it might work.

Benoit added that the COMS proponents are working on a data model on network slicing, network delay, and packet loss. He noted at some point they would need to map the layer.

Ted Hardie asked why the work should be done in the IETF. He mentioned other organizations where work like this was being developed already, and asked why the proponents came to the IETF instead of going there.

Benoit agreed COMS might work better in another space, but it wasnÕt completely clear at this point.

Warren added that part of the issue was he wasn't sure the proponents were all talking about the same issues. He noted they seemed to be talking past each other on the mailing list, using the same terms to mean different things. He thought getting them all in a room together might clarify what they think they are talking about, and that would be useful.

Ignas Bagdonas noted that he wasn't sure there would be sustained interest in the subject, but that a non-WG forming BoF to see if the IETF is the right place for the work would be useful.

Alissa Cooper summed up the discussion for approval.

Ignas noted that it would have to be a tightly guided BoF to develop the right questions and move the discussion in a useful direction.

Ted noted that he thought the BoF would benefit from an IAB shepherd named early; Jari Arkko volunteered.

The BoF was approved for IETF 101.

ROUTING AREA

o Routing In Fat Trees (RIFT)
  Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

This is a Proposed Working Group currently in the process of being chartered. The group was approved for a session at IETF 101 with no discussion.

o Link State Vector Routing (LSVR)
  Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

This is a Proposed Working Group currently in the process of being chartered. The group was approved for a session at IETF 101 with no discussion.

SECURITY AREA

o EAP Method Update (EMU)
  Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty

This is a Proposed Working Group currently in the process of being chartered. The group was approved for a session at IETF 101 with no discussion.

o Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP)
  Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty/Ben Kaduk/Eric Rescorla

This was a BOF and IETF 98 and IETF 100, and is currently in the process of being chartered. The group was approved for a session at IETF 101 with no discussion.

o Security Dispatch (SECDISPATCH)
  Responsible AD: Eric Rescorla

This is a Proposed Working Group currently in the process of being chartered. The BoF was approved for IETF 101 with no discussion.

o Messaging Layer Security (MLS)
  Responsible AD: Eric Rescorla

Eric Rescorla introduced the BOF. This is a WG-forming BOF; the group is discussing a draft charter on the mailing list. 

Ted Hardie agreed to provide comments on the draft charter text.

The BoF was approved for IETF 101.

o Cleartext JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)
  Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty/Ben Kaduk

The BoF request was withdrawn before the BoF Coordination Call.

TRANSPORT AREA

NONE

IAB SESSIONS

NONE