Minutes of the IESG/IAB BoF Coordination Teleconference IETF 100 5 October 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 / IAB 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 / IETF Chair, General Area Spencer Dawkins / Transport Area Mat Ford / ISOC Ted Hardie / IAB Chair Suresh Krishnan / Internet Area Mirja Kuehlewind / Transport Area Warren Kumari / Operations and Management Area Terry Manderson / Internet Area Stephanie McCammon / IETF Secretariat Alexey Melnikov / Applications and Real-Time Area Cindy Morgan / IETF Secretariat Kathleen Moriarty / Security Area Alexa Morris / IETF Secretariat Erik Nordmark / IAB Eric Rescorla / Security Area Alvaro Retana / Routing Area Adam Roach / Applications and Real-Time Area Brian Trammell / IAB Amy Vezza / IETF Secretariat Suzanne Woolf / IAB REGRETS --------------------------------- Susan Hares / Scribe Joe Hildebrand / IAB Lee Howard / IAB Allison Mankin / IRTF Chair Gabriel Montenegro / IAB Mark Nottingham / IAB Robert Sparks / IAB Jeff Tantsura / IAB Martin Thomson / IAB APPLICATIONS AND REAL-TIME AREA NONE GENERAL AREA o IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0 (IASA20) Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper Alissa Cooper introduced the ongoing work of IASA20. She mentioned that the design team was working on a document revision which she expected to form the basis for the discussion at the Singapore IETF. Ted Hardie noted that the relaxed pace might be detrimental. Alissa agreed. Jari Arkko added that the design team was a bit behind, as they wanted to have the revised document in mid-September, but they werenÕt finished with incorporating the comments. The BoF was approved for IETF 100. INTERNET AREA NONE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREA o Common Operation and Management on network Slicing (COMS) Responsible AD: Benoit Claise Benoit Claise introduced the proposed COMS BoF. He noted that it grew out of the NETSLICING BoF that met at IETF 99 in Prague. He mentioned that he wasnÕt sure that the topic ready for another BoF, and would welcome input. He suggested three possible ways forward: 1) Make the BoF Non-WG forming to further discuss the issues 2) Make the BoF WG-Forming even though there is no charter text or deliverables identified 3) Suggest a proposed research group in this area instead. Terry Manderson thought a research group might be useful for the group to figure out what it needs to do. Brian Trammell cautioned that the group would need the right mix of people to be successful. Benoit mentioned he was on the side of not holding the BoF in Singapore, to let the proponents figure out what they really wanted to work on. Jari Arkko thought a BoF would be useful, and was in favor of holding it. Benoit noted that the OPS ADs had been trying to get them to focus, but it had not happened yet. Spencer Dawkins mentioned that he thought they need to identify maps and gaps and have more input from a shepherd than theyÕve had to date. Warren Kumari said that they have tried to narrow the scope, but it hasnÕt happened yet. Alissa Cooper agreed that the group not having even a start on charter text was worrisome. Benoit asked if Jeff Tantsura and Jari would be available to help shepherd the effort for a future IETF meeting, not Singapore. Jari agreed to help. Jeff Tantsura was not on the call. Benoit suggested they write the I-D themselves. Jari asked if a document did get written on this subject was there an appropriate group to review it. Warren suggested the NETSLICING Mailing list, as well as OPSAWG. Network slicing documents were already being discussed and any work could go into existing WGs. Jari agreed that if the subject could be discussed in an area meeting it would do a lot to narrow the scope of the work. The proposed BoF was not approved for IETF 100. ROUTING AREA o IDentity Enabled Networks (IDEAS) Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana introduced the Proposed WG and mentioned he wanted the session to be approved as the charter text was due to be approved at the next telechat. He indicated there was a possibility the PWG would not be approved. Erik Nordmark noted that they had some help with security issues, but he wasnÕt sure the person was specific enough. Brian Trammell noted that they were wrapped up in identity versus identifiers and that needed the right person to help. Spencer Dawkins agreed. Jari Arkko mentioned that it was perhaps too late to focus on privacy. He thought the issues were more fundamental, and they needed a discussion on the assumptions and models behind the work in a BoF situation, not a brand new WG. Alvaro noted he was happy with the level of dialog surrounding the issues that had been identified. Ted Hardie worried that the wider audience of a BoF might be too contentious, and suggested that bar-BoF might be a better way to focus the topic for a proposed working group. Alia Atlas disagreed with that assessment, and thought it would be a mistake to derail the effort completely. Warren Kumari asked if there was a problem that needed solving. Jari mentioned that this was more researched and well-formed than many other possible BoFs proposed in recent memory, and perhaps that was part of the problem. Erik agreed that the group wandered into identity versus identifiers and became mired there. Alvaro requested that they defer the decision on whether to approve the BoF until after the discussion of the PWG's charter at the next IESG telechat (October 12, 2017). o Data Center Routing (DCROUTING) Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana introduced the proposed BoF, noting that most of the discussion had taken place in the IDR, ISIS, and RTGWG Working Groups. He also noted they had a formal presentation at the last IETF, and many people seemed interested. He noted that they always ran out of time for the discussion in the wider area meetings and wanted to have dedicated time on the agenda to discuss it. Suresh Krishnan noted there was no traffic on the mailing list. Alvaro agreed and pointed to discussions on the IDR mailing list and the RTGWG mailing list. The BoF was approved for IETF 100. SECURITY AREA o Firmware Update (FUD) Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty Kathleen Moriarty introduced the proposed BoF. She noted that the proponents had done a lot of work in preparation, and she thought theyÕd be ready to be a working group after IETF 100. Jari Arkko asked via email prior to the meeting if there are vendors involved, and Kathleen replied that there are. Kathleen was not able to access Jabber during the meeting, but Spencer Dawkins noted that the discussion in the Jabber room was in favor of holding the BOF. The BoF was approved for IETF 100. o Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty Kathleen Moriarty indicated the BoF was in good shape and the proponents had done a lot of work after their last BoF. She noted sheÕd like to approve the BoF for IETF 100. Suresh Krishnan stated that there was an issue the last time this BoF was held about work done outside the mailing list. He asked what was different from the last time. Kathleen noted there were a number of interested vendors and they could make it clearer in the charter text how the work would be done on the protocol interface. The BoF was approved for IETF 100. TRANSPORT AREA NONE IAB SESSIONS NONE