Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference 10 June 2016 Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat Additional reference materials available at the BoF Wiki (https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/). ATTENDEES --------------------------------- Jari Arkko / IETF Chair, General Area Alia Atlas / Routing Area Ben Campbell / Applications and Real-Time Area Benoit Claise / Operations and Management Area Alissa Cooper / Applications and Real-Time Area Spencer Dawkins / Transport Area Ralph Droms / IAB Lars Eggert / IRTF Chair Stephen Farrell / Security Area Mat Ford / ISOC Ted Hardie / IAB Joe Hildebrand / IAB Russ Housley / IAB Suresh Krishnan / Internet Area Mirja Kuehlewind / Transport Area John Leslie / Scribe Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area Cindy Morgan / IETF Secretariat Kathleen Moriarty / Security Area Alvaro Retana / Routing Area Robert Sparks / IAB Andrew Sullivan / IAB Chair Dave Thaler / IAB Brian Trammel/ IAB Amy Vezza / IETF Secretariat REGRETS --------------------------------- Deborah Brungard / Routing Area Lee Howard / IAB Joel Jaeggli / Operations and Management Area Terry Manderson / Internet Area Stephanie McCammon / IETF Secretariat Erik Nordmark / IAB Martin Thomson / IAB Suzanne Woolf / IAB APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA Name: SIP Best-practice Recommendations Against Network Dangers to privacY (sipbrandy) Token: Ben Campbell Ben Campbell noted that the SIPBRANDY proposed working group charter is out for review and it will likely be a working group by the Berlin meeting. As such, it was on the agenda as a placeholder and to make sure it gets a session requested for IETF 96. The proposed working group was approved for a one hour agenda slot with no further discussion. Name: InterLedger (interledger) Token: Alissa Cooper Alissa Cooper introduced the proposed BoF InterLedger. She stated there was not much discussion in the IETF for the InterLedger protocol stack. She said the BoF would likely not be working group forming, more an exploration of interest. Dave Thaler wanted to know if there was an open mailing list it was being discussed on as the link in the BoF wiki was not open. Stephen Farrell stated the group was pretty open about inviting experts. Benoit Claise wanted to know who the key players were. Alissa mentioned a number of small companies having discussions in the W3C. Jari Arkko stated he thought that the IETF should let them meet, and that it was their job to demonstrate the business interest. Russ Housley mentioned the name should change to avoid confusion. Alissa agreed, and mentioned iLedger as a possible name/acronym change. The proposed BoF was approved for a two hour agenda slot for IETF 96. Alissa Cooper confirmed a name change to ÒLedger (ledger)Ó after the completion of the teleconference. Additionally, Alissa provided information on the public mailing list archive: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-interledger/ And mentioned it was possible to subscribe to the list from a link on the archive page. Name: Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem (ggie) Token: Ben Campbell Ben Campbell introduced the proposed Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem (ggie) BoF. He mentioned they have a draft that is a high-level introduction to the issues, and there is a wiki as well. Joe Hildebrand mentioned that the high-level introduction was not specific or clear enough. Dave Thaler stated it was hard to understand exactly what the BoF was about. He questioned if it was specific to audio-visual or if there was more. Ben said this was the name the W3C used, and that it was for audio-visual. The proponents are planning to showcase the technology at a Bits and Bites table. There was discussion on whether it was ready to be a stand alone BoF, and it was decided that the proponents would be given some time in the DISPATCH WG meeting. The BoF was not approved. GENERAL AREA Name: Meeting Venue (mtgvenue) Token: Jari Arkko Jari Arkko mentioned that the MTGVENUE proposed working group charter would go out for review and it will likely be a working group by the Berlin meeting. As such, it is on the agenda as a placeholder and to make sure it gets a session requested for IETF 96. After a brief discussion about session length, a two-hour session was approved for the proposed working group. Name: International Meeting Arrangements (imtg) Token: Alissa Cooper Alissa Cooper introduced the IMTG BoF as a non-working group forming BoF that would be an informative session instead of a discussion. Russ Housley wondered if one hundred seats were enough for the meeting, as either it would draw a lot of people or it wouldn't and a bigger room might be better. Alissa and Jari agreed to increase the size of the room, but keep the session length to one hour. The IMTG BoF was approved. INTERNET AREA Name: Low-Power Wide Area Networks (lpwan) (formerly: IPv6 over Low-Power Wide Area Networks (6lpwa)) Token: Suresh Krishnan Suresh Krishnan introduced the 6LPWA BoF and indicated it has met before under the acronym LPWAN. Lars Eggert questioned why include "6" for IPv6, since IPv6 was the current standard and did not see the reason to specifically state it in the name of the group. Suresh agreed to go back to the original name and acronym for the second BoF and the BoF was approved for a two hour session slot. Name: Intelligent Transportation Systems (its) Token: Suresh Krishnan Suresh Krishnan spoke about the second BoF request for ITS, saying that the proponents had narrowed the scope of the work. Russ Housley agreed that narrowing the scope was the right thing to do, and that the technology was going to be used. He added that the charter had been narrowed to two drafts and he thought the group could be chartered. Suresh added there was one manufacturer committed. Stephen Farrell mentioned the charter was unclear, and questioned the approach. Russ added that the IETF should move out some informational documents and call it IP over DSRC. Stephen mentioned if the IETF specifies one way, but the real world was going another way the IETF should get out of the way. Suresh advised if the IETF doesn't do the groundwork, nothing will happen. Ralph Droms asked if the IETF was going to invent yet another vehicle to vehicle protocol. Russ added that the technology was already invented, and there was work to be done for essential pieces for it. The BoF was approved for a two hour session slot. OPERATIONS AND MANANGEMENT AREA None ROUTING AREA Name: Babel (babel) Token: Alia Atlas Alia Atlas mentioned that the BABEL proposed working group charter is out for review and it will likely be a working group by the Berlin meeting. As such, it was on the agenda as a placeholder and to make sure it gets a session requested for IETF 96. The proposed working group was approved for a two hour session slot with no further discussion. SECURITY AREA Name: Limited Use of Remote Keys (lurk) Token: Stephen Farrell Stephen Farrell indicated support for the second BoF for LURK. The BoF was approved for a two hour session slot with no further discussion. Name: Some PKIX and S/MIME (spasm) Token: Stephen Farrell Stephen Farrell mentioned that the SPASM proposed working group charter will go out for review and it will likely be a working group by the Berlin meeting. As such, it was on the agenda as a placeholder and to make sure it gets a session requested for IETF 96. The proposed working group was approved for a one hour session slot with no further discussion. TRANSPORT AREA Name: Information Centric Networking Working Group (icn) Token: Spencer Dawkins Spencer Dawkins introduced the ICN BoF as a technology for forwarding messages using names. He mentioned it was technology coming from the IRTF ICNRG. Lars Eggert noted that the research group was started, although the not uniformly agreed upon with the various parts of the ICN research community Mirja Kuehlewind mentioned that the scope wasn't clear from the description in the wiki, about what work would stay in the RG. Lars mentioned that a large part of the RG work would disappear if a WG was formed. Ralph Droms noted a number of companies were interested in getting something published as a standard. Andrew Sullivan said that new network architecture is a big deal, and this BoF seems premature, with experimental documents where no experiment has been done. The ICN BoF was felt to need additional background work. The BOF call suggested that ICNRG should discuss the readiness of the technology at IETF 96. Spencer further asked that the IAB assign a BOF shepherd for ICN, if the ICN proponents decide to continue work after IETF 96 discussions in ICNRG. Name: Low Latency Low Loss Scalable throughput (l4s) Token: Mirja Kuehlewind Mirja Kuehlewind introduced the L4S BoF as a new service that the Internet could provide to eventually replace best efforts for all traffic. She noted that there had been activity in the L4S space for a while, and that they had met informally in both Buenos Aires and Yokohama. She wants to approve the BoF as a non-wg forming BoF to involve people outside of the Transport Area in the discussion. Stephen Farrell mentioned that the tone of the write up in the wiki seemed too much like a sales pitch. The L4S BoF was approved for a two hour session slot. Name: QUIC (quic) Token: Spencer Dawkins Spencer Dawkins introduced the QUIC BoF as a UDP-based transport protocol that provides multiplexed streams over an encrypted transport, and said it was his intention to approve it. There was discussion over the naming of the BoF but the decision was to keep it short. The QUIC BoF was approved for a two and a half hour session slot. Name: Path Layer UDP Substrate (plus) Token: Spencer Dawkins Spencer Dawkins introduced the PLUS BoF, whose goal is to enable the deployment of new, encrypted transport protocols, while providing a transport-independent method to signal flow semantics under transport and application control. Additionally he noted that while QUIC is not dependent on this technology, it may benefit from it. Joe Hildebrand added that he was unsure it was necessary until he had a discussion with some of the proponents and now sees value in letting it go ahead. The PLUS BoF was approved for a two and a half hour session slot. IAB SESSIONS None DISCUSSION OF NUMBER OF AGENDA SLOTS AVAILABLE VS REQUESTED There was a brief discussion on the number of sessions available versus the number of sessions requested. The IAB and IESG mentioned several ways to maximize possible session time, including adding a ninth track to one day, starting earlier, and/or ending later. They agreed to add an additional track if it became necessary during the agenda scheduling to do so.