[Chapter-delegates] ISOC's Follow up "Rough Guide" to IETF74

Wed Jun 10 04:09:31 PDT 2009

Dear Colleagues,

Following on our tradition from the last IETFs, Leslie Daigle and her 
team in 'Standards and Technology' have produced a follow up "rough 
guide" to the hot topics for the 74th IETF.

On behalf of Leslie's group we hope you find this document useful. 
Please feel free to share it with your members, or any one else you 
think might make use of it.

Big thanks to Leslie and her team for producing this.

Best regards,
Sabrina Wilmot
ISOC

A Follow-Up to ISOC's Rough Guide to IETF74 Hot Topics
======================================================

ISOC's Standards & Technology department offered a “rough guide” to hot 
topics being discussed at the 74th IETF. We are producing a similar 
“rough guide” for the 75th IETF in Stockholm (July 26-31, 2009). This is 
a follow up to the rough guide for the 74th IETF where we offer a set of 
highlight of events from the 74th IETF. The text is largely that from 
the “rough guide” with embedded text for the areas we are now reporting 
on. We focused on the following four topics:

IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
Securing the Internet Infrastructure
Trust and Identity
Bandwidth Management
IETF Structure and Process

IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
---------------------
As there is increasing momentum to deploy IPv6, as well as recognition 
that IPv4 and IPv6 network realities must coexist, work is being done to 
develop specifications to allow interoperable behavior between networked 
realities.

6AI BOF: IPv6 Address Independence BOF
This meeting addresses NATs for IPv6, primarily for address independence 
for enterprises.

There was no clear consensus from the meeting to form a working group or 
even to produce a document. Discussion continues on the mailing list and 
there will likely be a follow-on BOF at IETF75 to continue the discussion.
BOF’s do not have webpages, but BOF status for all BOFs under current 
consideration at IETF74 can be found 
here:http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIetf74

The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/6ai.txt

BEHAVE WG: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance WG
BEHAVE has a broader charter, but the specific point of interest to this 
topic is the IPv4 to IPv6 translation (and vice-versa) that is chartered 
here. There are several drafts on the agenda that are pertinent. (See 
the agenda page for a complete list).

Ongoing discussions of Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) and NATs for IPv4-IPv6 
transition are taking place in the BEHAVE WG. Of particular interest in 
the discussion of IPv4-IPv6 NAT is the proper handling of DNS 
translations between different domains. Several active participants in 
DNS standardization have been paying attention to this work now and it 
seems that everyone is in agreement that these kind of solutions leave 
quite a bit to be desired with respect to the operation of DNS in such 
domains. An active outreach is being conducted to the DNS operational 
community to determine how much of this that community can really tolerate.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/behave-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/behave.txt

SOFTWIRE: Softwires WG
While much of the work of this WG has been specifying discovery, 
encapsulation, and control for connecting IPv4 clouds over IPv6 and 
vice-versa, it has picked up the work item to define DS-lite ("dual 
stack" lite). This pertains to IPv6 and continued existence of IPv4 
following IPv4 address completion. Some of the other address sharing 
proposals may be being merged with existing DS-lite proposals. What we 
are hoping for here is an optimal an address sharing solution as we can 
envisage combining IPv6 deployment and a reasonable level of end user 
control.

No update available.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/softwire-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/softwire.txt

SHARA BOF: Sharing of an IPv4 Address BOF
This BOF is concerned with address sharing and all the various proposals 
for IPv4 address-sharing that have emerged recently. Randy Bush’s 
overview of the many address-sharing proposals that were around, led to 
this BOF to focus on the topic specifically. This is not a working group 
forming BOF.

Mat Ford presented his internet-draft on problems with shared addressing 
during the meeting. His I-D can be found at: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-00.txt. 
This documents a number of issues with approaches to shared addressing 
that are being considered for standardization. There were a number of 
other documents discussed as well and it was difficult to determine that 
any consensus about the topic was reached in the room. Finally it was 
agreed to continue to discuss this on the mailing list for SHARA.

BOF’s do not have webpages, but BOF status for all BOFs under current 
consideration at IETF74 can be found 
here:http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIetf74
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/shara.txt

Securing the Internet's Infrastructure
--------------------------------------
A number of discussions are underway to improve the overall security of 
the Internet's infrastructure. A recent headlining technology is DNSSEC. 
There are other, less obvious, critical pieces under discussion for the 
routing infrastructure, as well.

SAVI WG: Source Address Validation Improvements
This WG "considers only solutions implemented on systems located on the 
same IP link as a to-be-verified node... running in routers of 
layer-3-aware ethernet bridges" Drafts include a proposal for SeND SAVI 
and requirements.

 From the Charter: "The purpose of the ... working group is to 
standardize mechanisms that prevent nodes attached to the same IP link 
from spoofing each other's IP addresses... The WG is prohibited from 
creating its own protocols or extensions/modifications of current 
protocols." The discussion of design decisions since IETF 73 
concentrated on failure conditions for duplicate address detection (DAD) 
in IPv6. Whether the proposed SAVI binding protocol, which violates the 
charter, should distribute address bindings through push or pull 
presupposed distribution, but several participants suggested that 
validation (or alerting to failure) through DAD would suffice. There was 
some discussion of partial SAVI protection of a subnet. Despite these 
fundamental questions, an report claimed interoperability among 7 
vendors over several thousand SAVI subnets.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/savi-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/savi.txt

SIDR WG: Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
Focus is on the authorization of an originating AS to advertise an 
address prefix. The technical specification under consideration is for 
certificates for a Resource PKI (RPKI) (The most relevant "resources" 
are address prefixes and AS numbers.) Outside the WG, we see evidence 
that implementation is underway. The (different) Routing Protocol 
Security (RPSEC) WG is chartered for to document security requirements 
for routing systems.

Discussion of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) architecture 
centered on the difference between certificate names being identifiers 
at the level of RIRs and IANA and not elsewhere; uniform 
non-identification will be written into the next draft. Discussion of 
Trust Anchor Material centered on differences between a single root of 
trust, with a simple certificate, or multiple roots, with cross-signed 
certificates between address authorities. How to deal with 
inconsistencies in the data held by IANA and RIRs, as well as the value 
of simple certificates, divided opinions. The next draft is to include 
clear need for multiple roots. How to handle partial deployment of RPKI 
centered on whether Bogon Origin Attestations (BOAs) as well as Route 
Origin Authorizations (ROAs) are needed.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sidr-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/sidr.html

DNSOP WG: DNS Operations
The specifications of DNSSEC by the DNSEXT WG are done. Deployment is 
being discussed in DNSOP and drafts have appeared in time for this 
meeting. DNSSEC experts are monitoring implications of v6-v4 NAT in 
other WGs. Currently under consideration: locally-served zones (almost 
done), and requirements for management of DNS servers.

Discussion focussed on drafts on (1) revising DNSSEC Operational 
Practices (RFC 4641) based on deployment experience and cryptographic 
analysis, (2) timing analysis and requirements for DNSSEC keys, and (3) 
rules to avoid abuse in new top-level domain names. There was also 
(less) discussion of (4) DNSSEC implications for the NAT6to4 proposal 
being discussed in BEHAVE, (5) proposed use of DNS for HIP identifiers, 
and (6) details of deleting resource record signatures in backup signers.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/dnsop.txt

DKIM WG: Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
This is an ongoing effort to add authenticating information to the 
headers of email messages. This may have some relationship to the YAM 
BOF, which is aiming to capture and tighten up the specifications of 
some mail headers: in order to have useful signature/verification 
infrastructure, it is necessary to have well-harmonized usage of mail 
headers.

Discussion of errata for RFC 4371 exposed fundamentally different views 
of the output of the DKIM validation process. Some felt strongly that 
the output is an identifier indicating the validity of the message 
origin; other felt as strongly that it was any set of information to 
enable email filtering.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dkim-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/dkim.txt

Trust & Identity
----------------
Although there is no specific chartered trust or identity working group 
within the IETF, there are a number of IETF work items that have 
important cross connects with the broader community of identity 
technology development.

OAUTH BOF: Open Web Authentication BOF
This is a BOF about some work that has come out of identity community. 
An independent author draft was submitted between IETF72 and IETF73; 
there was a BOF at IETF73. There is a lot of interest in the 1.0 spec 
for OAUTH. Since IETF73, there has been work on drafting a charter and a 
lot of discussion about what should go in it. Expected to become a WG at 
or after this meeting.

The big news following the IETF 74 meeting is that the IESG has approved 
the charter for the OAuth Working Group!

This work came in the IETF is a BOF based on work that has come out of 
the identity community (http://oauth.net/) An independent author draft 
was submitted between IETF72 and IETF73; there was a BOF at IETF73 and 
in a follow on meeting at IETF 74 participants hammered out the final 
details of the proposed charter.

Look for an interview with Eran Hammer-Lahav (author of the initial 
draft) and Blaine Cook (now a WG co-chair) in the next issue of the IETF 
Journal. Additional OAuth community activities can be tracked here:

http://groups.google.com/group/oauth/

WG webpage: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/oauth.txt

GEOPRIV WG: Geographic Location/Privacy WG
The WG has been around for a long time, addressing some tricky privacy 
issues. The work from this group has informed and is related to some of 
the issues in ECRIT WG.

The WG meeting in San Francisco included a packed agenda and several 
heated debates. Privacy protection has a frequent concern as were 
formats for geodetic location.

A Virtual Interim Meeting is schedule for late May to continue the
discussion on updates to RFC 3825. See:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/wiki

and the growing inventory of location formats can be found here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/wiki/LocationFormats

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/geopriv-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/geopriv.txt

ECRIT WG: Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies
This work is particularly interesting in the context of emergency 911 
services. A lot of this is about authentication, and access to identity 
credentials. Tied to ATOCA BOF.

This work is particularly interesting in the context of emergency 911
services.

The meeting in San Francisco included a review of the working groups
process in advancing their work and a review of current drafts measured
against their internal "3 stage" process.

ECRIT plans an Interim meeting in June of 2009 and details
will be made available here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/wiki

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ecrit-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/ecrit.txt

Bandwidth Management
--------------------

LEDBAT: Low Extra Delay Background Transport WG
This WG is focusing on defining a congestion control mechanism that 
saturates bottleneck links, whilst simultaneously maintaining low delay 
and yielding to standard TCP. In other words, a mechanism that would 
allow bandwidth intensive applications to scavenge as much free 
bandwidth as possible without negatively impacting on simultaneously 
occurring interactive, or inelastic traffic flows. BitTorrent have 
recently submitted an I-D describing a novel congestion control 
mechanism for which they have already amassed considerable deployment 
experience and which it is claimed meets the chartered objectives of the 
working group.

Stanislav Shalunov presented the BitTorrent congestion control algorithm 
and there was lengthy and detailed discussion in the working group 
meeting. This was largely positive and constructive and further review 
and comment will continue on the mailing list. The WG indicated 
willingness to adopt the document as a WG work item, but this does not 
preclude the possibility of other novel congestion control algorithms 
being submitted that address the WG charter.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ledbat-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/ledbat.txt

ALTO: Application Layer Traffic Optimisation WG
This WG is designing and specifying a service that will provide 
applications with information to perform better-than-random initial peer 
selection based on factors including maximum bandwidth, minimum 
cross-domain traffic, lowest cost to the user, etc. Work is progressing 
to merge proposed solution protocols, although there are several 
competing proposals still on the agenda at this time. Documented trial 
deployments illustrate the potential benefits of this approach. One area 
of controversy is edge-caching of content in service provider networks, 
and there are a couple of drafts dealing with this subject.

The problem statement draft has been adopted, as has the requirements 
draft, although it is accepted that the requirements need to remain 
flexible. The working group went into an overflow session to see if it 
was possible to drive the various solution proposals towards some kind 
of consensus approach. This concluded with consensus that defining a 
protocol sufficiently flexible to allow the full spectrum of proposed 
approaches was desirable. There was less unanimity in support of the 
idea of a negotiation mechanism.

WG webpage: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/alto-charter.html
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/alto.html

P2PRG Peer-to-Peer Research Group
The IETF has formed working groups to address specific issues of P2P 
networking (i.e. P2PSIP, ALTO, LEDBAT). During the development of 
standards for P2P networks in these working groups, new research topics 
may arise that exceed the working group charter and require a separate 
forum for discussion. The P2PRG provides such a forum without 
duplicating the work being done in the different IETF WGs.

RG webpage: http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=rg&group=p2prg

Several interesting presentations on recent P2P research results. 
Pointers to some of the raw datasets have subsequently been shared on 
the mailing list. Archives are here: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2prg/current/maillist.html

The slides can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/P2PRG.txt

IETF structure and process
--------------------------
Two important IETF structural/process discussions on the agenda for 
IETF74 are the IPR discussions, and NomCom process.

PRE8PROB BOF: Pre-5378 Problem BOF
Dealing with the problem of handling IPR declarations for documents 
building on RFCs that pre-dated RFC 5378 IPR rules.

No update available.

BOF’s do not have webpages, but BOF status for all BOFs under current 
consideration at IETF74 can be found 
here:http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIetf74
The slides can be found here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/index.html
The minutes can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/pre8prob.txt

NomCom -- on IETF operations and Administration Plenary
This plenary includes the following important item for the IETF NomCom 
process:

NomCom Process Change (1600 to 1655)

1. Introduction
2. Presentation of each draft followed by Q&A
- draft-galvin-rfc3777bis
- draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait
- draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist
3. Way forward

The minutes of the plenary session are available here: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/plenaryw.txt

It was clear from the discussion that RFC3777bis will be moving forward, 
and there was much support for reviewing role of liaisons as expressed 
in the document.

There was some support to move draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait forward -- 
adjusting the timetable and process for announcing the open slots the 
NomCom has to fill, and giving some discretionary powers to the previous 
NomCom chair to launch the process if the incoming NomCom chair has not 
been identified.

draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist -- was the biggest point of discussion. 
Should the list of willing candidates be public knowledge for each 
position? General support is for, though detail of how to handle it is 
not clear.

Drafts are being updated, and discussion is on the 
"ietf-nomcom at ietf.org" mailing list.

Leslie Daigle
Chief Internet Technology Officer
Internet Society
daigle at isoc.org