Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 98 15 February 2017 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 Ignas Bagdonas / Scribe Deborah Brungard / 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 Susan Hares / Scribe Joe Hildebrand / IAB Russ Housley / IAB Lee Howard / IAB Joel Jaeggli / Operations and Management Area Suresh Krishnan / Internet Area Mirja Kuehlewind / Transport Area Warren Kumari / Incoming Operations and Management Area Terry Manderson / Internet Area Allison Mankin / Incoming IRTF Chair Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area Cindy Morgan / IETF Secretariat Alexa Morris / IETF Secretariat Kathleen Moriarty / Security Area Erik Nordmark / IAB Eric Rescorla / Incoming Security Area Alvaro Retana / Routing Area Robert Sparks / IAB Andrew Sullivan / IAB Chair Dave Thaler / IAB Martin Thomson / IAB Brian Trammel/ IAB Amy Vezza / IETF Secretariat Suzanne Woolf / IAB REGRETS --------------------------------- John Leslie / Scribe Stephanie McCammon / IETF Secretariat APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME (ART) AREA Name: JSON Message Access Protocol (jmap) Token: Alexey Melnikov Alexey Melnikov noted that the JMAP proposed working group charter is out for review and it will likely be a working group by the Chicago meeting. As such, it was on the agenda as a placeholder and to make sure it gets a session requested for IETF 98. There was a brief discussion on the size of the room requested, and Alexey was advised to ask for a bigger room. The Proposed Working Group was approved for a one and a half hour agenda session slot at IETF 98. Name: Glass-to-Glass Internet Ecosystem (ggie) Token: Ben Campbell Ben Campbell introduced the GGIE proposed BoF, mentioning that this BoF had been put forth before but received limited interest. He added that he wasn't sure there was any difference between this new BoF request and previous requests that were not approved. Lars Eggert noted that he wasn't sure this proposal was viable. Spencer Dawkins asked if the subject of glass-to-glass internet ecosystems had been discussed in the DISPATCH WG. Ben mentioned they had been to DISPATCH twice. Eric Rescorla agreed with Lars; he didn't think this was a viable idea. He noted they had gone through the process, but not proved there was substantial work. Andrew Sullivan noted that he had been asked to shepherd the effort and he had generated some traffic on the mailing list. He said that they had running code. Dave Thaler mentioned that Bits-n-Bites might be a place for them to demo their ideas. In response it was noted that they had a table at a previous IETF, but the demo did not bring in more interested people. Robert Sparks noted that it sounded like the proponents have not yet found a way to articulate the problem for IETF work. He recommends not approving the BoF. Mirja Kuehlewind agreed with Robert in recommending not approving the BoF. Ben wanted to know if anyone had objection to a side meeting or Bar BoF. There was no objection to the Bar BoF suggestion. The proposed BoF was not approved for a session slot at IETF 98. GENERAL (GEN) AREA Name: WGs Using GitHub (wugh) Token: Jari Arkko/Alissa Cooper Jari Arkko mentioned that he wanted this discussion to happen. He thought a one hour agenda session would be sufficient. Dave Thaler noted that the conflict list was extremely long and wondered if the list could be prioritized to make scheduling easier. Alissa agreed the conflict list was long, but that it was limited to related areas, and mostly the length was due to IETF attendees who have expressed interest or expertise with regard to GitHub. Martin Thomson mentioned he and Alia Atlas had been working on writing an I-D on this subject. Dave Thaler noted that this had been discussed before during the WG Chairs Forum lunch, but thought that the move to a more formal meeting was appropriate. There was a brief discussion on the size of the room needed for the meeting, and all agreed a room for 100 would be sufficient. The proposed BoF was approved for a one hour session slot at IETF 98. Name: IASA 2.0 (iasa20) Token: Jari Arkko/Alissa Cooper Jari Arkko introduced the proposed BoF and mentioned that there are workshops on the subject in the next few weeks, and the BoF at IETF 98 would likely discuss the information coming out of those workshops. He went on to note that there is work to be done before the BoF, but wants to get the BoF on the agenda. There was a brief discussion about the appropriate room size for the BoF. The proposed BoF was approved for a one hour session slot in a room for at least 100 people. INTERNET (INT) AREA None OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT (OPS) AREA Name: Coordinated Address Space Management (casm) Token: Benoit Claise Benoit Claise introduced the proposed BoF CASM. He mentioned there were two or three drafts already in OPSAWG. The proponents had asked for a BoF last time and were declined because it was a last minute request. There has been a lot of preparations since then, and the OPS Area Directors wanted to approve the BoF session slot as a non-WG forming BoF. Joel Jaeggli noted that there has been a group effort to tighten the scope of the questions the BoF was attempting to answer. Warren Kumari mentioned that a number of IPAM vendors are open source, so the community interest may be bigger than it appears to be. Allison Mankin brought up the relatively few discussions on the email list. Warren responded that the list was not accurate, as the list is new and a lot of preliminary discussion happened on the OPSAWG mailing list. Ralph Droms added some anecdotal evidence that there might be a wider audience for the work as there were interested parties in other areas. Joel agreed, but noted the level of interest may fluctuate depending on the answers to the questions raised at the BoF. The proposed BoF was approved for a one and a half hour session slot at IETF 98. ROUTING (RTG) AREA Name: In-Situ OAM (ioam) Token: Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana noted that this was a placeholder BoF for a proposed working group currently in Internal Review. He went on to say it may or may not be a working group by the Chicago IETF. Stephen Farrell mentioned he had a lot of issues with the current charter, but had no issues with approving a BoF slot for IETF 98. Mirja Kuehlewind voiced some concerns over the scope of the charter, and wondered if the work belonged in the Routing Area. Joel Jaeggli mentioned the subject was discussed in OPSAWG, and they were ready to adopt the documents. Alvaro noted the chartering effort hasn't gotten to external review where the community would have a chance to discuss the charter. After a short discussion regarding the readiness of the charter, the proposed BoF was approved for a two hour session slot at IETF 98. SECURITY (SEC) AREA Name: A Protocol for Dynamic Trusted Execution Environment Enablement (teep) Token: Kathleen Moriarty Kathleen Moriarty introduced the proposed TEEP BoF. She mentioned they had a document and a community and seemed to be ready to hold a BoF. Dave Thaler mentioned it looked like they had the support of more than one company for this work. Kathleen noted that once they mentioned they were using JOSE, so there might be more interest from the JOSE community. Dave responded he thought there might also be crossover with OPS Area, but wasn't sure. Warren Kumari agreed it wouldn't hurt to advertise the session in the OPSAWG, and add OPSAWG and OPSAREA to the conflict list. He mentioned it was different than how the OPS dealt with it, but might be useful to explore. Ben Campbell mentioned there might be some overlap with CoAP for the conflict list. There was a short discussion on whether the BoF was looking to be WG forming, and Kathleen admitted she did not think it was ready for that at this point. Eric Rescorla asked if a side meeting might be better. Dave Thaler responded that there would be better attendance with a BoF, and recommended that. The proposed BoF was approved for a one and a half hour agenda session slot at IETF 98. Name: Firmware Update Description (fud) Token: Kathleen Moriarty Kathleen Moriarty introduced the proposed FUD BoF, but noted that there was a noted lack of materials from the proponents and at most she was inclined to give them some time in the Security Area Open Meeting (SAAG). Dave Thaler agreed, as he could find limited discussion and no documents for the group. Spencer Dawkins agreed, but wanted to make sure the effort was more visible to the wider community where it could attract more participation. The proposed BoF was not approved for an agenda session slot at IETF 98. Name: Internet-Level Consistancy (ILC) Token: Kathleen Moriarty/Stephen Farrell Kathleen Moriarty mentioned that she doesn't think this proposed BoF was ready. She mentioned there were no materials or documents ready for discussion, and she would prefer to offer them some time in the Security Area Open Meeting (SAAG) for the Chicago meeting, and perhaps a BoF or WG slot in Prague. The proposed BoF was not approved for an agenda session slot at IETF 98. TRANSPORT (TSV) AREA None