IAB, IESG and IEEE 802 Executive Committee Minutes of the 9 September 2016 Meeting, Paris, France Reported by: Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager) ATTENDEES ------------------- - Jari Arkko - Alia Atlas (remote) - Deborah Brungard - Benoit Claise - Alissa Cooper (remote) - Subir Das - Spencer Dawkins (remote) - Donald Eastlake - János Farkas - Stephen Farrell (remote) - Eric Gray (remote) - Ted Hardie - Bob Heile - Marc Holness (remote) - Suresh Krishnan - Cindy Morgan - Glenn Parsons (remote) - Dan Romascanu - Jon Rosdahl - Dorothy Stanley - Andrew Sullivan - Pat Thaler - Pascal Thubert - Rob Wilton - Juan Carlos Zuniga MINUTES ------------------- 1. Introductions (including new EC, IESG, IAB members), goals of the meeting Dan Romascanu welcomed everyone to the meeting and led a round of introductions (see list of attendees, above). 2. Status of the Shared Areas work (Dan, Pat) Coordination Doc: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/ Potential-areas-for-IETF_IEEE802-Coordination_21.txt Dan Romascanu reviewed the list of shared work items. The coordination document (see above) has the current status of each item. For item 3, IETF NVO3 and IEEE 802.1 DCB, Pat Thaler reported that the P802.1Qcn document is in Task Group ballot. Glenn Parsons has an action to make the document available to NVO3. For item 11, IETF and IEEE 802.1 OmniRAN TG, OmniRAN has an action item to update the IETF INTAREA on the current status of the document. Juan Carlos Zuniga will follow up with Max Riegel to pass that message along. For item 19, Common OAM proposal / Layer Independent OAM, Dan Romascanu reported that much of the relevant work in TRILL is close to completion; 802.1 will be notified when the documents go to IETF Last Call. For item 21, 6tisch, Pascal Thubert reported that the 6TISCH WG is working on a new charter to expand what it has done and bring in some of the work from the ANIMA WG, which does not take IOT into consideration. Dan Romascanu observed that ANIMA is not mentioned in the description for this item on the shared list, and should be added to the description. For item 22, CAPWAP extensions in OPSAWG, Dan Romascanu reported that there is one document waiting for AD review. For item 29, Opportunistic Wireless Encryption (OWE), Dan Romascanu reported that a mailing list was created for discussion on this after the IETF meeting in Berlin. For item 30, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Suresh Krishnan reported that the charter just went into internal review. Dorothy Stanley added that she included this in her July liaison report to 802.11. 3. IoT related work in IETF and IEEE 802 Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/IOT- related-work.pdf Pat Thaler updated the group on IOT work areas in 802. The current work focuses on: - Enabling use of local MAC addresses - Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) - Physical layers for IOT (low cost, low power) - Privacy considerations Additionally, 802.24 is working on white papers on the relationship between IEEE 802 standards and IoT, which is also a focal point for any general liaisons on IOT to IEEE 802. Subir Das asked if the the 802.1 work on TSN refers is specifically on ethernet. Pat Thaler replied that it is not; while it can be controlled more closely on ethernet than it can be on some of the wireless protocols, there are cases where wireless can control time adequately, as with scheduled transmissions. Suresh Krishnan noted that there are specific privacy concerns about IOT; a draft in the 6LO Working Group (draft-ietf-6lo-privacy- considerations, Privacy Considerations for IPv6 over Networks of Resource-Constrained Nodes) attempts to address some of this. Ted Hardie observed that one of the constraints is that the ability to change identifiers is low; the systems in which these things are deployed are not thinking in time scales that are consonant with the time scales the devices are deploying. He asked if figuring out how the architecture can provide these privacy capabilities is joint work. Pat Thaler replied that it would be addressed in the privacy document. The local controller will mediate any discussions with the larger world. Ted Hardie noted that there are consequences if the local controller talks to everything if that is not in the architecture of the particular system. The initial deployment might have a use case and understanding of what talks to what that can be completely confounded if different things start communicating. The time scales of some of the devices in the network are used in these varied contexts. Ted asked if that should be discussed in 802E, in IETF, or in joint work. Juan Carlos Zuniga replied that it depends on the use case. It is on 802E to think about future use cases and consider the privacy implications when reusing existing technology. Pat Thaler noted that another constraint is that some of these systems have a tight turn-on constraint (e.g. the time from turning the key in a car to the car turning on). In such situations, a fixed configuration is needed because there will not be a lot of time for protocols. Ted Hardie observed that device updates are also a concern. If, for example, a smart lightbulb has a long update cycle, it is possible that the manufacturer could disappear between updates, leaving the device with no way to be updated. The larger Internet system is then left with a series of pointers for the entire lifecycle of the device as it was originally deployed. At the IAB's IoT Semantic Interoperability Workshop earlier this year, there was a discussion about externally hosted IOT schemas (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sdo-iot-sync). One thing that would be valuable would be a Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) identifier. There is a draft in OPSAWG (draft-ietf-opsawg-mud) that describes this. Dan Romascanu noted that it would be helpful to have a tutorial on MUD at the next 802 Plenary meeting. 4. Approaches to 5G standardization Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/IEEE5G.pdf Suresh Krishnan observed that it is not currently clear who owns the "5G" moniker. It will be important for the IETF and IEEE 802 to be aware of what is going on with 5G in other venues. There are also parallel efforts in 3GPP. Suresh suggested setting up a mailing list to help coordinate efforts. Slides: https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/16/ec-16-0119-00-5GSG- report-ieee-802-ec-5g-imt-2020-sc.pdf Glenn Parsons updated the group on 802's 5G/IMT-2020 Standing committee. Four potential Actions were proposed by the Standing Committee: 1. Action A: Adoption of IEEE 802 Access Network specification in multiple disparate operator networks. 2. Action B1: IMT-2020 recognition for some 802.11 radio interface. 3. Action B2: IMT-2020 recognition for several IEEE 802 radio interfaces. 4. Action B3: 3GPP incorporation of IEEE 802 features, referenced in IMT-2020. The Standing Committee has a preference for Action B3, with a secondary desire to progress Action A. Work on Action B3 will be organized by 802.11, with a liaison to 3GPP. Work on Action A will be organized by 802.1's Industry Connections project. Spectrum issues will be handled by 802.18, and joint 802.1/802.11 meetings will be held has necessary for coordination. 5. Deterministic Networking Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/ Deterministic-Networking-2016-09-07.pdf Norman Finn updated the group on the current status of work on deterministic networking. IEEE 802 has the following published standards: - IEEE Std™ 802.1Q-2014 Bridges and Bridged Networks o Incorporates old 802.1D non-VLAN bridges and all AVB standards - IEEE Std 802.1Qbu-2015 Frame Preemption (in bridge) supports IEEE Std 803.3br-2016 Interspersing Express Traffic (in MAC) - IEEE Std 802.1Qbv-2016 Scheduled Traffic o Per-port rotating schedule turns on and off every queue - IEEE Std 802.1Qca-2015 Path Control and Reservation o Uses ISIS to create multiple paths IEEE 802 has the following in-process standards: - P802.1CB Frame Replication and Elimination for Reliability (SB) o Makes use of multiple paths (802.1Q, 802.1Qca) o Adds serial tag, or uses IEC 62439-3 HSR tags or PRP trailers - P802.1Qcc Stream Reservation Protocol Enhancements (WG) o Defines managed objects to allow central control of an enhanced peer-to-peer bandwidth reservation protocol - P802.1Qch Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (WG) o Lock-step synchronized double buffering provides fixed latency, zero congestion loss - P802.1Qci Per-Stream Filtering and Policing (WG) o Time-gated input processing supports P802.1Qch CQF, per-flow queues, and robustness against misbehaved transmitters. - P802.1CM Time-Sensitive Networking for Fronthaul (TG) o Profile for TSN standards for CPRI (Common Public Radio Interface) fronthaul application. - P802.1Qcr Asynchronous Traffic Shaping (editor’s drafts) o 2-stage hierarchical shaped queues. The IETF DetNet Working Group does not have any published RFCs yet, but the following work is in progress: - Deterministic Networking Problem Statement (draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement) o Adopted by the WG - Deterministic Networking Use Cases (draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases) o Adopted by the WG - DetNet Data Plane Protocol and Solution Alternatives (draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt) o Call for Adoption by WG issued - Deterministic Networking Architecture (draft-finn-detnet-architecture) o Call for Adoption by WG issued In addition, there are 5 other independent drafts currently being considered. Pat Thaler noted that IEEE 802 has an agreement to make the 802 standards available free of charge after 6 months. 6. 802.15.12 upper layer interface Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/ 2013/01/15-16-0594-00-0000_IETF-IEEE802-Mtg-802.15.12- Update-2016-09-09.pptx Bob Heile updated the group on work on IEEE 802.15.12 (Upper Layer Interface). 802.15.12 Functional Description: - Higher Layer Protocol Discrimination Entity (HLPDE) o Directs and optionally modifies information from Functional SAP to the appropriate higher layer protocol SAP or another Functional SAP - Multiplexed MAC Interface (MMI) o Directs and optionally modifies information from Functional SAP to the appropriate MAC SAP or another Functional SAP 802.1X provides authentication, authorization, and cryptographic key agreement mechanisms to support secure communication between end stations connected to 802 networks. 802.15.9 (KMP) provides a methodology to enable key management by providing a transport for key management protocols outside the application layers. Additionally, provides a fragmentation and multiplexing layer for those packets so they can be delivered over smaller MAC layer frames and multiplexed on the recipient end to the right processing service. 6LoWPAN provides the function of MAC frame modification into a frame format for transmission of IPv6 packets and the method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured addresses on IEEE 802.15.4 networks. Additional functions include a header compression scheme using shared context and provisions for packet delivery in IEEE 802.15.4 meshes. 6tisch functions as an abstraction of an IP link over the TSCH mode of the MAC sublayer by providing network formation and maintenance, multi-hop topology, assign time source neighbor, resource management, dataflow control, scheduling mechanisms, and security. 802.15.10 (L2R) provides the following functions: topology construction, L2R mesh discovery/join/update/recovery, hop-by-hop retransmission, unicast/multicast/broadcast routing, data concatenation, short address assignment, and security Management protocols provides a Yang modeling interface via the HLPDE-SAP to upper layer applications such as CoAP, CoMI. Additionally, it provides configuration parameters to the MAC and PHY via the MMI-SAP, and may provide configuration parameters to other protocol entities in the ULI. The next steps include: 1. Define the Higher Layer Protocol Discrimination Entity (HLPDE). 2. Define how the Multiplexed MAC interface (MMI) works using the Multiplexed data service as a baseline. 3. Define how the management protocols work - PHY configuration - MAC configuration - TG4s coordination efforts 4. Define how KMP should work within 15.12. - Define the KMP SAPs using 802.1X as an example 5. Define how 6LoWPAN should work within 15.12. - Define the 6LO SAPs using IPv6 as an example 6. Define how L2R should work within 15.12. - Define the L2R SAPs using both an endpoint and router as examples 7. Define how Ranging should work within 15.12 - Define the RNG SAPs using RFID as example 8. Define ULI frame mechanism (ULI IE/Payload). - Unique identification of ULI presence - Compression of higher layer stack and EtherType - Other components? 7. YANG data models in IEEE projects, coordination and support from IETF Benoit Claise reported that the NETMOD WG is working on the VLAN model. He noted that the data models need to be produced quickly, as the industry will not wait for SDOs to provide perfect standards. Marc Holness presented a summary of two active YANG projects in progress in 802.1: 802.1Xck (Port-Based Network Access Control Amendment: YANG Data Model) and 802.1Qcp (Bridges and Bridged Networks Amendment: YANG Data Model). Slides: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/ mholness-8021-YANG-Summary.pdf Benoit Claise if there is a need for a generic YANG model to do LAG. Marc Holness replied that the current scope of active YANG projects in 802.1 does not include LAG, but that they want to make sure that what is put into place will not prevent the graceful introduction of LAG later. The IETF will identify a YANG doctor to look at the to 802.1 models once they are ready for Working Group Ballot. 8. IP Multicast over wireless IP networks Dorothy Stanley reported that Charlie Perkins and Juan Carlos Zuniga are working on a draft of a document that describes the problems people have had deploying multicast of 802.11 networks. Juan Carlos added that the idea was to document the solutions; some are standards- based, while others involve configuration or operational solutions. The eventual goal it to progress the document in the IETF INTAREA WG, either as an Informational or BCP RFC. At IETF 97, there will be a tutorial that presents the updates made within 802.15, 802.1, and 802.11 since the previous tutorial at IETF 95. 9. Pervasive Monitoring Juan Carlos Zuniga reported that on the IEEE side, there is a PAR in the Task Group, and they have some text for the threat model. As soon as a draft is ready for comments, he will let the group know. Stephen Farrell reported that on the IETF side, draft-wkumari-owe-02 is the current draft. Stephen has some contacts at Stanford who normally review the security in 802 documents, and he is planning to ask them to take a look at the document. The current plan is to start the IETF Last Call for this document before the end of the year. 10. Copyrights and permissions related to IEEE documents referred by IETF Internet-Drafts Suresh Krishnan reported that the TICTOC WG is working on a MIB that copies text from an 802 document, and they are trying to figure out the copyright rules. The IETF Trust and legal counsel are involved, as are the licensing and risk management folks from 802. Suresh, as the responsible AD, sent a permission request to 802, and when the response comes back he will hand it off to the Trust and the legal counsel to review. He will report back to the group once he has more information. 11. Action items, future meetings and planning work ahead NEW ACTION ITEMS: - IETF to give short presentation on MUD in IEEE. - Suresh to contact Scott Mansfield (IETF liaison to ITU-T) about IMT2020 and 5G work - IETF action item to identify a YANG doctor to review the 2 models being worked on in 802.1 when they come to WG phases - All to provide feedback on face to face meeting time. - New PARs and approved BOFs to be communicated to the list by October 10. - Dan Romascanu to send out a Doodle poll to schedule the next virtual meeting in late January or early February.