Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 103 26 September 2018 Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat Revised with notes from: Spencer Dawkins Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki (https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/). ATTENDEES --------------------------------- Alexey Melnikov ART Alissa Cooper GEN Amy Vezza Secretariat Ben Campbell ART Benjamin Kaduk SEC Brian Trammell IAB Cindy Morgan Secretariat Deborah Brungard RTG Eric Rescorla SEC Erik Nordmark IAB Ignas Bagdonas OPS Jari Arkko IAB Jeff Tantsura IAB Liz Flynn Secretariat Mark Nottingham IAB Martin Thomson IAB Martin Vigoureux RTG Melinda Shore IAB Robert Sparks IAB Spencer Dawkins TSV Suresh Krishnan INT Suzanne Woolf IAB Ted Hardie IAB Warren Kumari OPS REGRETS --------------------------------- Adam Roach ART Allison Mankin IRTF Alvaro Retana RTG Christian Huitema IAB Gabriel Montengro IAB Mirja Kuehlewind TSV Karen O'Donoghue Terry Manderson INT APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA NONE GENERAL AREA o WGs Using GitHub (WUGH) - 1 of 2 Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper Alissa Cooper introduced the WUGH BoF, and spoke on the history of the use of GitHub, and other third party tools in use in IETF Working Groups. She mentioned a document that mapped a proposed incremental support of GitHub. She stated there wasn't much traffic on the list, and this may not be as controversial a subject as first thought. Benjamin Kaduk said that the idea looked fine, but wondered about the way to prioritize the Tools Team's time. He would prioritize GitHub's integration with the Datatracker as a fairly low priority. Eric Rescorla indicated general support for the proposed BoF. He also mentioned it might need to expand in scope. Robert Sparks added that the BoF would be useful and that speaking as a Tools Team member, there wasn't a lot of requirements for the Team, and the changes to the Datatracker seemed to be minimal. Spencer Dawkins spoke about possible general confusion of understanding about the use of GitHub in working groups at the trailing edge of adoption in the wider IETF community, and suggested that the BoF may help working groups that are not moving forward to adopt GitHub yet, to understand its use. Martin Thomson mentioned there was probably a good understanding amongst WG Chairs, as there was a WG Chairs lunch that spoke to best practices and GitHub. He was more concerned about the scope of the change, and how much support to provide users. He mentioned the incremental changes indicated in the document Alissa mentioned seemed a reasonable first step, and that expansion from there would be beneficial. Melinda Shore indicated there was benefit in having a document source readily available to multiple people, but she also had concerns about non- IETF resources hosting IETF work. Alissa mentioned the conflict list might need expanding, but she felt the BoF should be approved. She said she would work with the BoF Chair on an agenda. The WUGH BoF was approved for IETF 103. GENERAL AREA o Removing Offensive Terminology in RFCs (ROT-RFC) - 2 of 2 Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed ROT-RFC BoF. She mentioned there was a long thread of discussion on the HRPC mailing list, as well as a thread on the IETF discussion list. She also mentioned that there was no document on the topic, and this might be too early in the process to hold a BoF. However, she said that it would be good to encourage a side meeting to facilitate discussion. Ted Hardie encouraged the side meeting idea and cautioned that it would be better if the group focused on wording for future I-Ds and RFCs, and not removing language from past RFCs. He suggested that a neutral party to lead the discussion might make for a more successful meeting. Eric Rescorla disagreed about the IESG suggesting someone to lead the discussion. Ted mentioned that he would be willing to offer friendly advice as an individual if the IESG wanted. He also mentioned he thought helping to facilitate success would be beneficial. Jari Arkko agreed with Ted but cautioned that this topic should be focused on new technology and words rather than existing technology. If reasonable specifications using a set of reasonable terms to use in the future are proposed it would be a good thing. He mentioned it isn't clear if it can be done, but that does not block trying to do it. Spencer Dawkins mentioned that this effort might benefit from a BoF shepherd to be in the room during the discussion. Alissa said she hesitated to ask that at this point in the process for the perception of official-ness it might provoke. Spencer agreed, but mentioned that the side might end badly if nobody in IETF leadership helped to guide the in-person conversation, given the disconnect on this subject during discussions on the IETF Discussion mailing list. Jari mentioned that it was unclear if there were a qualified group to do the work. He said that putting people together in the room might be more appropriate than suggesting a BoF Shepherd. Melinda Shore brought up that this was mostly being discussed in the IRTF and might not have a lot of IETF participants involved. She noted that getting more of the IETF community involved might help it be more successful. Alissa noted that even a side meeting would likely get regular IETFers interested. She also mentioned that she would like to see more cultural diversity included in participation. She noted that offensive language is not universal across cultures, and cultural diversity would help to get better understanding of what is offensive. She thought the next step would be to pair the proponents up with knowledgeable people. The ROT-RFC BoF was not approved for IETF 103. A side meeting would be encouraged. INTERNET AREA NONE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREA NONE ROUTING AREA NONE SECURITY AREA o Handling IPsec Configurations in Large Scale SD-WAN Deployment with Constrained Resources (SDWAN-SEC) - 1 of 2 Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk or/and Eric Rescorla Eric Rescorla introduced the SDWAN-SEC BoF effort and added that the subject was recently presented at IPSECME. He wasn't sure the current work in the subject was ready for a BoF, but they may benefit from a side meeting. Jeff Tantsura agreed. Erik Nordmark noted if the mailing list didn't have much traffic maybe there wasn't sufficient interest in the subject. He added that he wasn't sure they had an effective problem statement. Melinda Shore added she thought there might be a market demand for this type of mesh VPN technology but she hadn't seen active participants in this space contributing on the mailing list, which she found puzzling. Jeff noted he wasn't particular whether it was BoF or side meeting, but that getting together to discuss the issues would be beneficial. Melinda said that there is a market demand for this sort of thing for large scale mesh vpns. Suresh Krishnan thought the technology was related to I2NSF, and perhaps a discussion within that WG meeting would be beneficial. Alissa Cooper agreed. She also noted some of the people working in this space were not aware of the BoF request. She added that the scope was unclear, and the description of the BoF only mentioned SDWAN, but the possible solutions proposed are also applicable elsewhere. Clarification would be useful. Benjamin Kaduk said that he would support encouraging a side meeting, and also to make relevant people more aware of the discussion. Erik supported the idea of a side meeting, but noted that the proponents needed to do some preparatory work for a meeting to be successful. Eric summed up the discussion and would suggest a side meeting to the proponents and would reach out to possible key participants. The SDWAN-SEC BoF was not approved for IETF 103. A side meeting would be encouraged. SECURITY AREA o Remote ATtestation ProcedureS (RATS) - 2 of 2 Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk Benjamin Kaduk introduced the RATS BoF effort. He noted that the description was rather long, and he wasn't sure the BoF would be successful, or what success would look like, but he supported giving the proponents a BoF to facilitate discussion. Eric Rescorla agreed. Erik Nordmark mentioned he had attended a side meeting at the last IETF meeting and would support holding a BoF. Melinda Shore cautioned that the scope of the charter would need a lot of work to focus the scope. She also supported holding the BoF. Erik agreed the scope needed narrowing to scale down to something achievable. Benjamin expressed concern about making sure the BoF is successful. Alissa Cooper noted that making sure there was an experienced co-chair to keep the discussion on target would be useful. She also noted that there are other groups working in this area and having someone make sure that the IETF isn't duplicating efforts would be beneficial. Melinda indicated that a lot of those kinds of issues could be resolved at the BoF. Alissa added she thought one of the proponents might be involved with one of those other groups, and could speak to that. She wanted to make sure that discussion took place, especially as the BoF indicated it looked to be WG forming. The RATS BoF was approved for IETF 103. TRANSPORT AREA NONE IAB SESSIONS NONE