IETF 103, Bangkok.


  • Update on WG documents: Voucher and stable-connectivity have publised as RFC 8366 & RFC 8368; GRASP and auto-prefix-management are in RFC-editor QUEUE with MISREF; reference-model has enough IESG position to pass, need another round of update; ACP has DISCUSSes from IESG, second WGLC may be needed after modification; BRISK has passed WGLC, waiting for write-up; GRASP-API and constrained voucher are newly adopted. ACP, BRISK & Constrained voucher made WG update in the meeting.
  • Comments and discussion on the new charter text: remove all marketing terms, such as DevOPS, slicing; take off the examples, either descrebe the scope or precise milestone work that already have people work on; the current scope are too wide and too general, it should have a clear critria. The new charter text will be refined and confirmed by the WG. A charter explanation document may be written to give more details.
  • New works are presented, Trust networking and procedures, Constrained joint proxy, & smart pledges.
  • There were 61 attendees on site, and 6 remote attendees.


BMWG met with 19 people present and 2 remote participants. The Call for adoption on Next-Gen Firewall Draft has just completed, three people offered support (and review) at the meeting, in addition to 5 or more on the list before the meeting). THe WG chairs will consider the WG input and determine the outcome of the call.

The WG EVPN and EVPN-PBB draft has made much progress addressing comments. The WG chairs will consider the WG input and determine if a WG Last Call is currently a good next step (not withstanding the many comments delivered at the meeting today, which would be consider WGLC comments during the comment period, as appropriate). There are also two new EVPN-related benchmarking proposals available as new drafts.

The WG used the session for considerable discussion of buffer-size measurement topics, including the present draft to update RFC 2544, which has benefited from previous comments and additional experimentation. The WG chairs will consider the WG input and determine if a call for WG Adoption is a reasonable next step.

There were several other new proposals in draft form, and a discussion of the cross-over between benchmarking test methods and Internet access methods, prompted by a Liaison from ITU-T SG 12 that describes a plan to evaluate these methods in a scientific way. Initial Lab results were shared with the WG, and there was good interest and discussion. The meeting ended precisely on-time!




WG did not meet in Bangkok. We have delivered our only chartered deliverable. This was published as RFC 8466. We previously asked the chairs to close the working group.



  • The WG discussed the "client-server and friend" drafts. The authors proposed further splitting of drafts to support keep-alives at varying protocol layers, which the WG generally agreed with.
  • The "yang-push and friends" authors presented updates to their drafts. Four of those drafts will be prepared for IESG once the LC issues have been resolved.
  • While the WG felt the need for a UDP publication channel, it was not clear in the draft what kind of notifications would be published over the channel. Authors have been asked to identify types of notifications covered by this draft. The multi stream originators solution is closely tied to how the UDP discussion concludes.
  • The WG was not clear on the advantage of a inline action capability or how broadly applicable is the solution. Authors need to articulate what kind of configuration will be able to take advantage of the solution being proposed.




OPSEC did not meet at IETF-103. Only two active drafts and only one submitted a request to be on the agenda.



IPv6 Operations met Monday morning, following the agenda at Key issues, as in recent meetings, have revolved around IPv6-only operation, and IPv4 as a service operating in some form of overlay. CERNET, the Chinese NREN, talked about CERNET2 (their IPv6-only network), which in turn came up in 6man regarding how an IPv4 address should be embedded into an IPv6 prefix. We also discussed different overlay technologies, both tunneled and translated, and the trade-offs between them. We see this set of technologies being adopted, expecially in mobile networks, but also wireline driven primarily by the escalating cost of an IPv4 address as compared to IPv6.

Last modified 4 years ago Last modified on 19/11/18 17:46:25