Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 102 5 June 2018 Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki (https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/). ATTENDEES --------------------------------- Adam Roach ART Alissa Cooper GEN Alvaro Retana RTG Amy Vezza Secretariat Ben Campbell ART Benjamin Kaduk SEC Brian Trammell IAB Cindy Morgan Secretariat Eric Rescorla SEC Erik Nordmark IAB Ignas Bagdonas OPS Jari Arkko IAB Karen O'Donoghue Liz Flynn Secretariat Mark Nottingham IAB Martin Thomson IAB Melinda Shore IAB Mirja Kuehlewind TSV Spencer Dawkins TSV Stephanie McCammon Secretariat Suresh Krishnan INT Suzanne Woolf IAB Ted Hardie IAB Terry Manderson INT Warren Kumari OPS REGRETS --------------------------------- Deborah Brungard RTG Christian Huitema IAB Allison Mankin IRTF Alexey Melnikov ART Gabriel Montengro IAB Robert Sparks IAB Jeff Tantsura IAB Martin Vigoureux RTG APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA o Internationalization Review Procedures (I18NRP) Ð 1 of 1 Responsible AD: Ben Campbell Ben Campbell introduced the topic of the BoF and indicated that he thought the issue the BoF wanted to work on was needed, but he wasn't sure it would be useful. Mark Nottingham added the conversation seems to be from the community that it was needed work. Eric Rescorla questioned what a successful BoF would look like. Mirja Kuehlewind thought that a directorate or an IAB Program might be a successful outcome. Ted Hardie added that there had been an IAB program on internationalization, but that it had concluded after limited progress post-LUCID. Ben summed up possible outcomes of the BoF. Either the BoF would find a new procedural way of doing the work, it would see the IETF couldn't do any work here, or it would be inconclusive. Eric added using a BoF to brainstorm ideas it isn't a good use of time. The proponents should have a better plan before the BoF happens. Alissa Cooper asked if this was about new substantive work or if it was about review. If it was about review there was no need for a BoF. Spencer Dawkins asked if the IETF had ever had an internationalization directorate, or just the IAB program. Suzanne Woolf thought there had not been a directorate. Ben noted that a problem could be having an Internationalization Considerations section in documents and having no directorate to do reviews. Suzanne noted that while there isn't a lack of people working in this space, there was a lack of people working on the architecture for it. Spencer mentioned that a directorate is not something that has been tried in the past. Ted mentioned that it would be difficult to say that the IETF tried and stopped work on this issue due to lack of interest. Ben mentioned that IETF is a bottom up organization, and the work is done where people are interested to do the work. Other standards organizations that work top-down might fix the problem for the IETF if the IETF doesn't. Alissa brought the discussion back to the BoF proposal and what the IAB and IESG thought about approval of the BoF. She indicated it could need more work, more documentation, more specific structure to the proposal before it is approved. Adam wondered if asking the proponents for that might push the request to IETF 103. Ben mentioned if enough work was done in between the meetings, it might be a candidate for an IAB workshop. Benjamin Kaduk added that asking for a more concrete proposal should have a quick deadline, so its not on a published agenda and then cancelled just before the meeting. Eric agreed, and suggested one week. Spencer wondered if one hour would be enough time. Alissa thought it was reasonable. The BoF was approved for IETF 102 provided the proponents of the BoF have a more concrete agenda. Ben and Adam will follow up with the proponents. GENERAL AREA o The label "RFC" (rfcplusplus) Ð 1 of 1 Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed BoF. Martin Thomson, as one of the BoF proponents, said that the general gist of the proposal was that people wanted to discuss the topic and he thought having such discussion would be useful. He asked if there were any concerns about having the BoF. Adam Roach noted that the BoF needed very strong chairs because this is a hotly contested idea. There was discussion amongst the IESG and the IAB about who could chair the session effectively and neutrally. A few names were put forward, and the IESG and IAB would follow up. Many IESG and IAB members indicated they wanted to attend the session. The BoF was approved for IETF 102 and Alissa will update the conflicts list. INTERNET AREA o Secure End to End Privacy Enabled Mapping System (ATICK) Ð 1 of 1 Responsible AD: Terry Manderson, Suresh Krishnan Terry Manderson indicated the proponents of the proposed BoF have done a lot of work since their first BoF in Prague. He mentioned he didn't think they were ready to be a WG-forming BoF at the moment, even if the BoF writeup indicated they wanted to be WG-forming. Erik Nordmark mentioned he was expecting more substance from the write-up. Spencer Dawkins added he was happy they had added privacy considerations, as they had not included them in the scope at their last meeting. Terry also mentioned he thinks the agenda included in the BoF proposal would need revision. Jari Arkko mentioned that he liked the idea, but found the documentation shallow. Eric Rescorla asked if that would block having a BoF at this time. Jari thought it was a solvable problem. Suresh Krishnan was concerned that the problem statement guided to a set of predefined solutions. He would like the BoF to not be driven by one solution; it should build to something everyone wants instead of being guided by existing solutions that may not fit. Melinda Shore added there was work going on in the IRTF in this space, but the people doing that work may not be able to attend IETF 102. Mirja Kuehlewind agreed it might be better as a research group, and added Allison Mankin was trying to form a RG with some of these issues and ideas. Suresh added that the current proposal had a lot of guidance from Erik Nordmark and Jeff Tantsura, and could use some additional shepherding effort. Erik Nordmark agreed and noted he could be more active by presenting and working on documents for them. Erik also suggested that the BoF be scoped to discussing privacy issues in mapping systems. Terry questioned whether there would be enough time before IETF 102 to reframe the BoF proposal and submit some written documents with more substance. Jari agreed with Erik and mentioned this work space is large and lots of people were looking at various pieces of possible work. The BoF was not approved for IETF 102. Terry will follow up with the proponents and Erik will try to steer some part of it by writing a document. OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREA o DNS Resolver Identification and Use (DRIU) Ð 1 of 2 Responsible AD: Warren Kumari Warren Kumari introduced the proposed BoF and mentioned he thought it would be useful to hold the BoF. He mentioned both DPRIVE and DOH could use this work. He asked if there were any questions. Benjamin Kaduk asked what a successful BoF would look like. Warren answered that a successful outcome would be people agreeing that they were working on the same problem, and agreeing that it was a problem worth solving. If that outcome is successful, they may choose to charter a working group for the next IETF. The BoF was approved for IETF 102. o Autonomous Asynchronous Management Policy and Protocols (AAMPP) Ð 2 of 2 Responsible AD: Ignas Bagdonas Ignas Bagdonas introduced the proposed BoF, and noted it was a very specific use case. It includes additional problems intentionally left out of NETCONF and NETMOD for realistic transport encodings needed in the data center space, high rate of change environments. They want to make model-based manageability more useful. Alissa Cooper asked if there was interest in the wider community. Ignas admitted that most of the interest was outside the IETF community. Eric Rescorla noted that having a community that does not want to work in the IETF being spoken for by others was not a useful model for getting any work done. Mark Nottingham wondered if there was enough here for a BoF, and suggested a BarBoF be a fine first step. Martin Thomson asked if there was a solution to the problem. Ignas noted that it has a set of problems with non-specific requirements and parts of solutions. Martin thought they might have a better meeting with specific requirements and a couple of sketches. Alissa thought a side meeting or BarBoF should be their next step. Spencer Dawkins mentioned he'd had the proponents in the DTN WG and they have already improved from where they were. The BoF was not approved for IETF 102. Ignas will suggest a side meeting as the appropriate next step. ROUTING AREA NONE SECURITY AREA o Application Transport LAyer Security (ATLAS) Ð 1 of 1 Responsible AD: Eric Rescorla Eric Rescorla introduced the BoF and noted the topic was previously presented in DISPATCH. The proponents had some momentum before the London IETF, but did not manage to get a BoF proposal together for that meeting. Eric expressed some ambivalence and worried about follow through. Martin Thomson asked if the proponents seem to want to do the work. Eric admitted there was some cooling of interest. Jari Arkko said he had read the mailing list before the London IETF meeting and it looked like there was interest for work in this space and work left to do, but wasn't sure the current people could effectively drive the work to completion. Brian Trammell noted that the TLS handshake to establish a keying mechanism uses the same pattern. He wondered if there was need of working group to talk about generalizing this. Eric asked Martin Thomson if he would be willing to shepherd the BoF to keep it on track. Martin agreed. Mirja asked if there was sufficient interest to hold a BoF and what the reception was in the DISPATCH WG when it was discussed there. Eric admitted DISPATCH was lukewarm on the idea. Martin said that a way forward would be to look at establishing a security association, using the TLS handshake to do it, using TLS as a service. Eric mentioned he would prefer it not be so unresolved as a BoF and suggested a side meeting with Martin as an IAB shepherd to refine the ideas. The BoF was not approved for IETF 102. The IESG will suggest a side meeting, with Martin Thomson to assist as IAB shepherd. TRANSPORT AREA NONE IAB SESSIONS NONE