wiki:IETF89

Version 4 (modified by brian@…, 7 years ago) (diff)

--

DMM

The DMM WG is about to complete the work on its current charter. The requirements document has already been submitted into the publication process and the second working group document on the current practices & gap analysis is nearing the completing. The next step with the gap analysis is the WGLC, which will be called after the IETF#89 week. The outcome of the gap analysis has pinpointed potential topics and areas of future work.

The WG aims to recharter before the IETF#90. There has been vivid offline discussion already on the possible work items and the revision of the charter text. The future distributed IP mobility management deployments are going to look rather different than what tradition IETF IP mobility protocols have been designed for. The DMM WG is not going to restrict itself only to existing IETF IP mobility protocols tweaking.

The WG spent around an hour of the f2f meeting time discussing the rechartering and identified areas to work on. The very draft charter text can be found: https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter. During the WG meeting few new topics were raised: linkage to other IETF WGs who do related work to some extent (not with mobility as the focus) like I2RS, SFC, LISP, FORCES and possibly VNFPool. The linkage to existing architectures was emphasised. If DMM WG wants to work on something that is deployable on e.g. 3GPP networks that should be documented how. Last, the current trend of network function virtualisation was brought up, and DMM should reflect that in its work.

L2TPEXT

L2TPEXT did not meet in London for IETF89.

The WG has a draft being currently polled for adoption, "Keyed IPv6 Tunnel" (draft-mkonstan-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel).

There are no concerns in L2TPEXT.

PCP

The PCP WG met at IETF 89. The DHCP option spec was submitted to the IESG just before the meeting, and progress was made on several other documents. The next rev of pcp-port-set should be ready to submit to the IESG, allowing an app to request a range of ports (e.g., for RTP). The PCP proxy spec and authentication specs are making good progress; the WG discussed open issues and determined next steps. The WG also agreed to start work on updates to the base PCP spec, collecting the deltas on which the WG already has consensus.

HIP

The HIP WG is chartered to finish an old Experimental RFC-to-be and to revise the main HIP specs, which are also Experimental, into Proposed Standards. The old Experimental RFC-to-be, the RELOAD instance spec, has already been published as RFC 7086.

The WG also has a few "bis" drafts. They revise the old Experimental HIP specs. Additionally, there are a couple of drafts that are spin offs of those specs: the NAT traversal mechanism and the multihoming part of the mobility and multihoming spec. We decided to document these in separate specs for clarity.

We intend to request their publication in batches so that reviewers have the necessary context when performing their reviews. We will be requesting the publication of the first batch, which includes RFC 4843bis, RFC 5201bis, and RFC 5202bis, shortly.

TRILL

The TRILL WG met Friday mid-day in the last meeting slot. After a review of status, Sue Hares presented a survey to gather information for the TRILL implementation report called for in the Charter and for which Sue has agreed to be editor.

There was a brief status and update presentation on TRILL OAM and a supplementary presentation on the Liaison the IETF received yesterday informing us the IEEE 802.1 WG has allocated blocks of CFM code points to the IETF. TRILL OAM uses these. WG Last Calls were started on draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm and draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay running through 24 March.

The next topic taken up was Active-Active. Draft-yizhou-trill-active-active-connection-prob, an Informational survey of the problems involved with TRILL active-actve connection at the edge, has been in call for WG adoption ending at this meeting with favorable comments on the mailing list. There were no negative comments from the meeting so the Chairs declared it adopted. Draft-hao-trill-analysis-active-active was then presented and there was a significant amount of discussion. This is an informational draft describing solutions to problems. Meeting comments indicate that another pass should be made on this document before calling for WG adoption.

Draft-zhang-trill-aa-multi-attach was presented and briefly discussed. While the material presented was good and coming along well, it raise enough questions that more discussion is needed.

Draft-mrw-trill-over-ip (which has been adopted as a WG draft although the WG filename version has not been uploaded yet) was then briefly presented and discussed with particular attention to the areas of the draft that may need more work. One question was whether UDP encapsulation or some custom encapsulation should be used. There was a strong consensus for UDP in the room, which will be confirmed on the list.

Finally, the status of the Directory Assisted Edge drafts was presented verbally but there was insufficient time to go into or discuss them.

6lo

6lo WG session was held on March 5th (Wednesday) in the 15:20 - 17:30 slot in the afternoon. The Agenda was full with several drafts and presentations. Four adopted WG drafts were presented at the meeting out of which the BTLE document is in IESG review phase and it is waiting for BTLE sig to comment on the IETF draft before moving further. draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz passed the WGLC call and received more comments due to change in privacy address in 6man. draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib WG comments were discussed at the meeting about providing interface specific MIB capability and the f2f WG meeting rough consensus was to include an optional interface-specific MIB in the document. Draft-ietf-6lo-ghc has been presented and discussed as well. The presented adopted WG documents are:

Waiting to be submitted: draft-ietf-6lo-lobac

draft-mariager-6lo-v6over-dect-ule was scheduled but not presented due to absence of the presenter.

Two new drafts were presented at the meeting:

An interesting presentation (https://www.w3.org/2014/strint/papers/35.pdf) on link-layer privacy from IAB STRINT workshop has been presented as well . 6TiSCH plugfest announcement and 6lo/6TiSCH possible collaboration area based on 6lowpan-nd are presented by the 6TiSCH co-chairs. 6lo co-chairs discussed possible interest in 6lo deployment usecase scenarios that require more work in the working group and develop a reference architecture related to other constrained node area network components.

DNSSD

The WG reviewed and discussed the individual requirements in the draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-01. The meeting participants accepted, in principle, the list of requirements. The authors will publish a revision of the draft that will include several specific changes as agreed to in the meeting. The chairs will then pos a WG last call to the mailing list for consensus on forwarding the document to the IESG.

Dave Thaler lead a discussion of what the WG needs to standardize to meet the WG charter and requirements document. Item 2, "Service discovery zone enumeration", was determined to need additional refinement, as the term "zone" is overloaded in the DNS and has an implication of "buckets" that may not be compatible with some desired methods of visibility control such as role-based. Item 5, "interop with other SD protocols", was recognized as out of scope for the current charter but is likely to be of interest for consideration in the future. The discussion of what needs to be standardized was followed by brief summaries and evaluation of standardization for three specific technologies. The conclusions of these three presentations will be consolidated with the list provided by Dave Thaler.

Andrew Sullivan reviewed the main points and conclusions in draft-sullivan-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-00. There is still some skepticism that any solution can be devised that will successfully address interoperability between DNS-SD/mDNS and the global unicast DNS. However, the WG was reminded to keep in mind that it is chartered to document issues in naming interoperability and solutions are currently beyond the scope of the charter. The chairs asked if Stuart Cheshire would join Andrew Sullivan as a co-author of this document.