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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Sabrina,

thank you, Leslie & her team for all of the "hot topics" list.

One which might have gone through the net (no pun intended) is that of 
Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (Revised), group IDNABIS.

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idnabis-charter.html
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/idnabis/

It is specifically work taking place in this working group, which ICANN is 
waiting on, in order to understand the technicalities of implementing 
widespread internationalized domain names. Considering the commercial 
pressure currently on ICANN for this process to be speeded-up, the topic of 
IDNs is pretty hot.

Warmest regards,

Olivier


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sabrina Wilmot" <wilmot at isoc.org>
To: "Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC's Follow up "Rough Guide" to IETF74


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>