[Chapter-delegates] HADOPI is down!

Wed Jun 10 12:13:23 PDT 2009

French court announced HADOPI is unconstitutional!

Congratulations to our French colleagues and to all Europeans!!

Veni

On 6/10/09, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device