Applications and Real-Time Area (ART)
- Description: For several years email community discussed revising RFC 5321 and RFC 5322 to move them to Internet Standards. Both documents are at Draft Standard (which no longer exist) and they have significant number of errata submitted. Concerns were also voiced about these documents, because they either don't talk about now accepted best email practices or in some cases may mislead readers about which practices are the best. - Status: WG Forming - Responsible AD: Barry Leiba - BoF proponents: Alexey Melnikov <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Pete Resnick <email@example.com> - BoF chairs: Alexey Melnikov, Seth Blank - Number of people expected to attend: 50 - Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 100 minutes (but 50 mins will be fine) - Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): EXTRA, JMAP, DMARC, UTA, CALEXT, WPACK, DISPATCH, SECDISPATCH, GENDISPATCH - Agenda - This is likely to be a working session going over rfc5321bis and rfc5322bis issues - Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant Internet-Drafts, etc. - Mailing List: firstname.lastname@example.org (Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/) - Draft charter: The base documents defining Internet messaging — colloquially, email -- are RFC 5321 (protocol) and RFC 5322 (format). These are revisions and consolidations of prior documents and were last published in 2008. They currently sit at Draft Standard status, a status that actually no longer exists according to current IETF procedure. Since then some errata have accumulated (both submitted to IETF and reported directly to editors), as well as comments made about these documents not necessarily describing best email practices. There is now exists sufficient critical mass to undertake a limited review and revision of these documents for the purpose of advancing them to Internet Standard status. This working group will conduct that limited review and revision, and publish new versions of these documents at Internet Standard status, per RFC 6410. The limited review is restricted to include corrections and clarifications only, such as verified errata and errata marked as "held for document update", however the WG is not limited to only addressing submitted errata. No new protocol extensions or amendments will be considered for inclusion into 5321bis and 5322bis documents, unless they are already published as RFCs. The working group will also work on Applicability Statement/BCP in parallel with 5321bis and 5322bis, to capture relationships to other widely deployed work (for example recommended extensions) and current email practices. Upon completion of these three milestones, and assuming the participants still have the momentum to do so, the working group may undertake similar review and revision of other email specifications. Such future word will require rechartering. - Relevant drafts: - Internet Message Format: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-rfc5322bis/ - SMTP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-rfc5321bis/ - Applicability Statement for IETF Core Email Protocols: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-email-core-as/
Description: In a 2018 event about IoT futures hosted by ZigBee, by far the most frequently cited challenge was the inconsistency and lack of interoperability across the field of IoT data models; specifically the lack of a common data model. Based on this observation, One Data Model (OneDM) was started in early 2019, bringing several IoT SDOs (Standards Development Organizations) and IoT device and platform vendors together under a broad, multi-party liaison agreement. The goal of OneDM is to arrive at a common set of data and interaction models that describe IoT devices. This will enable an application to work with IoT devices from different ecosystems, without a need for converting data and interactions from the model of one organization to that of the other. Ideally, for every class of IoT device, there is just a single model selected/created by the participating organisations, which everyone can adopt. The first step towards this goal was to have a common way how to write down a model. Since all participating organizations are currently doing this in their own ways, it made sense to develop a single way to describe models. Over a little more than a year, the Semantic Definition Format (SDF) was created, which can represent IoT Things, their composition from reusable Objects, their Interaction Affordances (Properties, Actions, Events), and the data models relevant to describe these Affordances. SDF is representing these models in JSON. This allows re-use of specification formats such as CDDL (RFC8610) and the formats proposed at json-schema.org for both the description of the SDF format itself and the structure of the data to be modelled in SDF. Abundant tools and libraries are available to produce/consume JSON, so tooling to work with SDF models can be created efficiently. Some 200 models in SDF format have been contributed by participating ecosystems; new models are being submitted continually. Version 1.0 of the SDF specification was published on the OneDM github repository and as an Internet-Draft. OneDM is now focusing on consolidating the body of submitted models and developing processes for arriving at harmonized models that span different industry ecosystems in a common way. Further development is needed on SDF, both with respect to functionality and editorial quality. OneDM is looking towards IETF as the standards development organization that is both providing the technical quality sought after and fits into the open collaboration model of OneDM itself. The objective of the ASDF WG will be to work with OneDM and its contributing organizations and develop SDF to an IETF-quality specification. In the process, some smaller pieces may become usable independently from SDF itself and its applications. JSON Path (similar to, but different in scope from JSON Pointer documented in RFC6901) might be an example for such a spin-off specification -- it is currently defined on a website and would benefit from a more formal definition so it can be used in discovery processes involving SDF models. Status: non-WG Forming Responsible AD: TBD BoF proponents: Michael Koster <email@example.com>, Carsten Bormann <firstname.lastname@example.org> BoF chairs: Michael Richardson, Niklas Widell Number of people expected to attend: 50 Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 100 minutes Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): CORE, CBOR, COSE [fill in!] Agenda Brief introduction into OneDM, SDF (Proponents) Views of contributing ecosystems (e.g., OCF, OMA LwM2M, ...) Discussion Calling the questions Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant Internet-Drafts, etc. Mailing List: email@example.com Draft charter: https://github.com/one-data-model/ietf108/blob/master/charter.md Relevant drafts: Use Cases: (no draft, see https://onedm.org and https://onedm.org/faq for info) Solutions: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-onedm-t2trg-sdf-00.html
Internet Area (INT)
A productive meeting was held on July 18th at IETF96 Berlin, with presentations on the status of BPBis, TCP-CL, BPSec, and numeric node ids. There were also two presentations on potential approaches to solve the charter item of static routing in DTNs. The BPbis presentation covered changes to the latest draft, particularly around the use of CBOR encoding and clarification of Customdy Transfer, with general consensus that the CBOR encoding should be specified as the standard bundle representation, and that convergence layer requirements should be stated in the draft, but specific details left to transport-specific drafts, for example TCP-CL. The TCP-CL presentation covered changes to the existing TCP-CLv3 experimental draft to align it with the latest BPbis work, and meeting consensus suggested it as a working group document, as it is a charter item. The rest of the meeting involved several presentations concerning addressing and forwarding of bundles through a heterogenous DTN, and although the discussion was productive, no consensus on a way forward was noted. A well attended interim meeting was held on September 28th, via WebEx, with presentations and discussion on the progress of BPbis and TCPCL. Scott Burleigh reported that good progress was being made with the CBOR encoding. Brian Sipos reported on the work on TCP-CL, and valuable discussion was had around backwards compatibility and hop-by-hop encryption using TLS. Consensus from the meeting was that TCP-CL should be accepted as a WG document, if there was consensus on the mailing list, which there was after the meeting. Minutes of both meetings are available on the DTN datatracker.
Operations and Management Area (OPS)
In Singapore, the IPPM WG: - discussed maintenance of its framework for IPv6 (WGLC is done and requires a writeup from the shepherd), - continued discussion of the WG IOAM data model and registry drafts - moved to adopt Advanced Unidirectional Route Assessment and the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), i.e. TWAMP without TWAMP-Control. IPPM continues maintenance of OWAMP/TWAMP, is moving toward publication of the registry, and continues work on IOAM.
Routing Area (RTG)
the ROLL (Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks) active document drafts are as follows: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-34 -Root initiated routing state in RPL-: This document enable a RPL Root to install and maintain Projected Routes within its DODAG, along a selected set of nodes that may or may not include itself, for a chosen duration. This was submitted to the IESG draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-10 - Controlling Secure Network Enrollment in RPL networks-: This document depicts defnes a method by which a potential enrollment proxy can announce itself as available for new Pledges to enroll on a network. draft-ietf-roll-rnfd-02 - RNFD: Fast border router crash detection in RPL -: This document describes RNFD, an extension to RPL that expedites border router failure detection, even by an order of magnitude, by having nodes collaboratively monitor the status of a given border router. draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-18 - Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks: AODV-RPL -: This document specifies a reactive P2P route discovery mechanism for both hop-by-hop routes and source routing: Ad Hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) based RPL protocol (AODV-RPL). This was submitted to the IESG Another working topics include: draft-ietf-roll-mopex - Mode of Operation extension: This document specifies an extended MOP option for future use. draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension - Common Ancestor Objective Function and Parent Set DAG Metric Container Extension: This document details how to exchange the necessary information within RPL control packets to let a node better select the different parents that will be used to forward a packet over different paths. This document also describes the Objective Function which takes advantage of this information to implement multi-path routing. [Last update: 2024-01-31]
The PCE working group is responsible for the Path Communication Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). PCEP allows a Path Computation Client (PCC - for example, a head-end router) to request paths from, or have paths created by, a Path Computation Server (PCE). The WG is discussing various enhancements to the stateful PCE. PCE is actively being used for computing and programing of segment routed (SR) paths. There are new proposals for use of PCE for Bit Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER) networks. Further, PCE is a core component of Software Defined Networking (SDN) systems. PCE WG has been working towards enhancing PCEP as an SDN southbound interface (SBI). [Last Updated: July 22, 2021.]
The BGP Enabled Services (BESS) working group is responsible for defining, specifying, and extending network services based on BGP. In particular it focuses on BGP based L2VPN, L3VPN, EVPN, multicast VPN. The current WG focus is mainly on EVPN which remains a brand new technology while still doing housekeeping on the other topics. An RFC7432bis will start to be prepared soon to fix the known issues in the original specification of EVPN. The WG has a significant amount of work on flexible Designated Forwarder Election (DF election) procedures to forward Broadcast Unknown Multicast traffic within an EVPN. Such flexibility is required to accommodate various use cases. The framework for the flexible DF election has been published while multiple optional procedures are under discussions within the WG     . The WG is also actively working on YANG models for the VPN services    . We are running late on this topic but we expect this work to be closed in 2020. The WG is also working on service function chaining based on BGP  . BGP NSH controlplane  is under review by the IESG. While  is on hold waiting for volunteers to finish the work as a significant amount of work is still require before publication. The WG is finishing the work on Virtual Ethernet Segments  which will bring more flexibility in definition of ethernet segments. The WG has started working on secure VPNs to ensure a secured transport of VPN services . [Last Updated: March 2020.] References:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sajassi-bess-secure-evpn/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohanty-bess-weighted-hrw/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bess-evpn-mcast-bw-quantity-df-election/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/
The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). SPRING WG serves as a forum to discuss SPRING networks operations, define new applications of, and specify extensions of Segment Routing technologies. The Segment Routing architecture has been recently published as RFC 8402 and SR-MPLS and inter-working between SR-MPLS and LDP-MPLS are in RFC editor queue. (along with draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label, draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing, draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions, draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions, draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles ○ draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid). SPRING has been recently re-chartered (2018-10). SPRING is currently working on SR policy routing, which is a framework on how SR components could be bound together and used for implementation of a scalable source based routing mechanism (draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy) and SRv6 network programming. During IETF 105, 4 individual propositions have been submitted proposing the use of shorter SID for the IPv6 data plane, mainly for performance reason on ASICs. This is expected to be hot topics for the next few weeks/months. Candidate future works items are around management and performance monitoring. [Last updated 2019-08-01].
The base package of four Babel protocol documents is currently in IESG consideration. This includes an applicability draft, the base protocol document (rfc6126bis), and two security drafts (DTLS and HMAC). The current work of the group is primarily on the Information and YANG models. The WG is also considering draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension (Delay-based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol).
The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the Locator/Id Separation Protocol (LISP) base specifications and produce standard-track documents. Indeed, experimental specification exists, but they need to be completed with on the field experience. In addition, the LISP WG is also chartered to tackle LISP related issues like Multi-protocol support; Alternative Mapping System Design; Mobility; Multicast; Data-Plane Encryption; NAT-Traversal. The working group is actually pretty close to finishing its main task, the main specifications. The following documents are the core of the lisp specifications and are under IETF review. - LISP Data Plane: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/ - LISP Control Plane: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/ The IESG raised a bunch of security-related concerns, which the authors addressed in a huge effort just before IETF 103. Part of the concerns are solved by the LISP-SEC document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec/ This document is still discussed in the WG, but changes are being done so to solve the majority (if not all) of the security concerns raised by the IESG review. [Last Updated: March 25, 2019]
The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered to document current protocol implementation practices and improvements, protocol usage scenarios, maintenance and extensions of the link-state interior gateway routing protocols (IGPs) - specifically IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3. The LSR Working Group was formed by merging the ISIS and OSPF WGs and assigning all their existing adopted work at the time of chartering to LSR. Current areas of interest in the LSR WG include: * Segment Routing Extensions: The IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 extensions for the MPLS data plane are either on the RFC queue or in the final review cycle. - OSPF Segment Routing Extensions - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions/ - IS-IS Segment Routing Extensions - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/ - OSPFv3 Segment Routing Extensions - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/ - Segment Routing in the MPLS Data Plane - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls/ * Segment Routing Extensions based for IPv6 are being developed. - IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Data Plane - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions/ * YANG Modeling: The base OSPF YANG Model has completed WG last call and is ready for publication request. The base IS-IS model will follow shortly. We have various model drafts for extensions that can be progressed now that the base models are nearly publication. The relevant YANG model drafts include: * The following YANG models are awating AD Review: - YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/ - YANG Data Model for IS-IS Protocol - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg/ * The following are being developed. - YANG Data Model for OSPF Segment Routing - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang/ - YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang/ - YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/ * Computation Optimizations: There are both WG documents and individual proposals to improve the LSR route computation. These include: - IGP Flexible Algorithm - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo/ - OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/ * Link Attribute Advertisement: OSPF and ISIS will allow application specific link attributes. These drafts will be WG last called shortly after IETF 104. - IS-IS TE App - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-app/ - OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse/ * Data Center (DC) Routing Optimizations - We have adopted the base dynamic flooding draft. This draft doesn't specify the algorithm and work on algorithms can now proceed in separate drafts. * The following are WG documents with updates at Prague: - IS-IS Spine Leaf - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-spine-leaf-ext - Dynamic flooding - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding At IETF 104, there will be updates on existing WG documents as well as presentations on following new work: - IS-IS Invalid TLV - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv - Update to IS-IS SRv6 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions - OSPFv3 BIER Extensions - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-psenak-bier-ospfv3-extensions/ - OSPF Admin Tags - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags - OSPF Reverse Metric - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric - OSPF BFD Strict Mode - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode - Updates to Flooding Reduction - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/ - OSPFv3 Extended LSA YANG Model - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/ - Hierarchial IS-IS - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-hierarchical-isis/ - IS-IS Area Abstraction - https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-abstraction-00.txt Document Status: * Since the last IETF in Bangkok, the following RFC have been published: - RFC 8444 - OSPFv2 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) – BIER WG Document - RFC 8476 – Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) using OSPF - RFC 8491 – Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSG) using ISIS - RFC 8500 – IS-IS with Reverse Metric - RFC 8510 - OSPF Link-Local Signaling (LLS) Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement - RFC 8570 – RFC 7810 Correction of IS-IS TE Metric Extensions encoding * The following drafts are on the RFC Queue waiting for missed references: - Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS - draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07.txt– Waiting on ISIS SR Extensions. - The Tunnel Encapsulations OSPF Router Information draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09 – Waiting on IDR Tunnel Encap Draft (To be presented in IDR) - OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-27 - Waiting on “Segment Routing with MPLS Data Plane” and “Segment Routing InterOp with LDP" - OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-23 – Also waiting on same drafts. * The following drafts are in the AD review process: - H-bit Support for OSPFv2 draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-06 – Waiting on authors for revised update for simple comments for over 100 days! - IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22 – Comments recently provided and revised ID required - YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol - draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21 – Waiting on AD Review - YANG Data Model for IS-IS Protocol - draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-35 – Waiting on AD Review - OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels - draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-05 – Publication just requested. * The following drafts are in WG last call: - Restart Signaling for IS-IS - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01 * The following drafts will be WG last called soon: - IS-IS TE Attributes per application - draft-ietf-isis-te-app-05.txt - OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse - draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-06.txt * The following are new WG documents: - Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 - IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-spine-leaf-ext-01 - OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-00 - IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 * The following are existing WG documents: - Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using - IS-IS draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-06 - Authors need to bring forward - Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF - draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07 - Authors need to bring forward - IGP Flexible Algorithm draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-01.txt - Work on implementations in progress - YANG Data Model for OSPF SR (Segment Routing) Protocol draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-07 - To be progressed now that base YANG documents are with AD - YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-05 - To be progressed now that base YANG documents are with AD Date: March 24th, 2019
The BFD Working Group standardizes the Bi-directional Forwarding Detection protocol specified in RFC 5880 and its related documents. BFD is typically used by "client protocols" in order to provide sub-second continuity verification, typically augmenting much slower protocols. An example of this is providing sub-second detection of link failures for IGPs (Interior Gateway Protocols). A "seamless" version of BFD, S-BFD, is specified in RFC 7880 and its extensions to provide for BFD functionality in environments where endpoints are potentially unknown to each other. New work under consideration for BFD includes: - Refining client protocol semantics for BFD liveness vs. protocol liveness in BGP and OSPF. - Considering BFD for the Geneve transport protocol. - Optimized authentication procedures to permit authentication to be used with high granularity session timers. - Validation of path MTU over the links utilized by a BFD session. - Providing RFC 5880/5881 services without explicit IP endpoint configuration. and finally: - Considering whether it's time to extend BFD to provide a more general framework for carrying additional information. The status of the Working Group is always available at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/bfd/wiki [Last Updated: March 19, 2019]
Data Centers have been steadily growing to commonly host tens of thousands of end points, or more, in a single network. Because of their topologies (traditional and emerging), traffic patterns, need for fast restoration, and for low human intervention, data center networks have a unique set of requirements that is resulting in the design of routing solutions specific to them. The Link-State Vector Routing (LSVR) Working Group is chartered to develop and document a hybrid routing protocol utilizing a combination of link-state and path-vector routing mechanisms. The LSVR WG will utilize existing IPv4/IPv6 transport, packet formats and error handling of BGP-4 consistent with BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms (RFC7752) to facilitate Link-State Vector (LSV) routing information distribution. The LSVR specification is initially focused on operation within a single datacenter (DC) as a single distribution domain, LSVR Routing protocol functionality would be typically used for routing within a datacenter’s underlay routing plane. The work will include coexistence considerations with BGP IPv4/IPv6 unicast address families installing and advertising routes into the same RIB. The main workgroup deliverable is the actual LSVR technical specification, together with a description of "how & where" LSVR can be used. Both of these key deliverable documents are currently in relative stable state, ready for a first implementation. In addition, recently LSoE (Link-State-over-Ethernet, a new Layer-2 discovery protocol) has been adopted into the LSVR working group. The goal of LSoE is to assist in LSVR neighbor discovery and to feed interface and neighbor information into the LSVR Link-State information constructions. The LSVR working group has only few documents found under the LSVR WG page documents tab. [Last Updated: March 19, 2019.]
The PALS WG defines, specifies, and extends network services based on pseudowires and/or signaled using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). It is a continuation of work that originated in the now-concluded PWE3 and L2VPN WGs. The WG has primarily been working on wrapping up its work. It has published all of its extant working group drafts as RFCs, and has been discussing an individual draft that intends to make it easier to incrementally introduce the pseudowire control word into networks that don't currently support it. We're keeping the WG open for a little while longer to see if this draft gels, and also to cover anything else that may come up in the short term. It will not be meeting at IETF 104. [Last Updated: March 19, 2019.]
PIM (Protocols for IP Multicast) is chartered to work on multiple IP multicast protocols. The Working Group is responsible for the maintenance of PIM, IGMP, and MLD. We work on the related YANG models. We actively review multicast work that occurs in other WGs, such as MBONED, BESS and BIER. For instance, with the SPRING charter not including work on multicast, we have also been reviewing new proposed work related to Segment Routing and Multicast until such time that SPRING does include multicast in their charter. At our most recent meeting in Bangkok we had a presentation that went into good detail reviewing the various options available for multicast within Segment Routing. We are also now starting the process of progressing IGMPv3/MLDv2 onto standards track. A small team is being formed to begin polling the multicast communities about features they do/don't use and provide information needed to justify progressing these protocols to Internet Standards. We performed a similar work for PIM a few years ago. We continue working on our existing drafts and recently adopted new work on reserved-bits, null-register-packing and bfd-p2mp-use-case. We look forward to continuing work on the mailing list as we prepare for our next meeting in Prague.
Scope of the MPLS wg responsibility -------------------------------------- The MPLS working group is responsible for standardizing technology for label switching and for the implementation of label-switched paths over packet based link-level technologies. The working group's responsibilities include procedures and protocols for the distribution of labels between Label Switching Routers (LSRs), MPLS packet encapsulation, and for Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for MPLS systems including the necessary management objects expressed as YANG models or MIB modules. Current Focus --------------- The MPLS working group are currently working on YANG models for the MPLS key protocols, MPLS resilient rings (RMR), MPLS data plane documents for Service Function Chaining (SFC) and Segment Routing, and Deterministic Networking (DetNet). The latest RFCs published were: RFC 8320 "LDP Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees" 2018-02 and RFC 8372 "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations" 2018-05 Abbreviatinons ---------------- MIB Management Information Base OAM Operations, Adminstration and Maintenance wg working group
IDR is resposible for the BGP protocol. IDR WG had interim prior to IETF 103 on 10/26/2018. The recording is available here: https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=6de208c314e7fcb229041a5ac290703d (streaming) https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/lsr.php?RCID=9f63197e2f731e3a938472c49f0c8421 (download) Chairs plan to hold 1+ interim with discussions on: - Auto-discovery topic - Bgp-attribute use 1document at RFC editor: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-15.txt (Jie Dong Shepherd) The following 3 documents sent to IESG for publication - draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-17 [Susan Hares Shepherd] - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11 [Susan Hares Shepherd] - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-te-pm-bgp-14 [Susan Hares Shepherd] Two new documents adopted: - draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.txt - draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext One documents with implementation waiting for Revised ID after WG input - draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-09 (Jie Dong Shepherd) The followign three drafts with implementations waiting for Shepherd write-up - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection (John Scudder) - draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps (John Scudder) The following drafts have past WG LC and these documents are waiting for implementation - draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-06 (Susan Hares) - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-09.txt (Susan Hares Shepherd) - draft-iettf-idr-rtc-no-rt-10 (John Scudder) - draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-05 (John Scudder) We have received three requests for adoption pending - draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr - draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo - draft-li-idr-bgpls-sbfd-extensions One WG LC did reach consensus (draft-ietf-eag-distribution-08). The IDR chairs WG will do requested WG LC in following priority - registry drafts (draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.txt) - operator critical drafts (based on OPS/grow feedback) - drafts with existing implementations, and - drafts regarding existing work (flow-spec, bgp-ls, segment routing, and communities)
Security Area (SEC)
Labeled IPsec document wes published as RFC. IKEv2 Configuration for Encrypted DNS are now in the RFC editor queue. Group Key Management is waiting for chairs and others to review and for shepherd writeup. Announcing Supported Authentication Methods in IKEv2 document is now in the publication requested state. Multi SA performance is now in working group last call, and there is long list of documents waiting for adoption call to the WG (will need to talk with area director, whether they are ok by the current charter). Those include DSCP handling, mtu detection, diet-esp using static context header compression, revised cookie processing in the IKEv2 Protocol, and alternative approach for mixing preshared keys in IKEv2 for post-quantum security.
Charter under review
On Monday we discussed several of the current drafts and made some progress in understanding the design options and moving the documents forward. The architecture document was presented by Emad Omara, which was mostly uncontroversial. The protocol document took most of the time at this meeting. The big problem of group members having access to the keys of multiple group members (the double-join problem) was discussed at length. Most of the issues were around efficiency and making sure that any double-join protection mechanism continues to be logarithmic instead of devolving into linear time. New ideas were introduced around group initialization and giving a special exception to the group initializer --- which was a promising idea. Nadim Kobeissi presented remotely about authentication which illustrated how derived signature keys could improve the situation where authentication keys are compromised. On Thursday we reviewed the message protection draft, recapping the work that was presented at the interim about message protection. This led to a vigorous debate about forward secrecy. We also discussed a potential interim in January in San Jose, CA in order to take advantage of the presence of Real World Crypto.
IETF 103 Status Report The EMU WG met on Monday (November 5) between 16:10 - 18:10. Updates to the following two working group documents were presented: 1. EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 - draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-02 2. Improvements to EAP-AKA' (RFC5448bis) - draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-03 . There was consensus in the room to issue WGLC for draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-03. We also discussed PFS enhancements to EAP-AKA' and problems in using large certificates with EAP-TLS. There was consensus in the room to adopt the work on PFS enhancements to EAP-AKA'. Lastly, we also had presentations on two non-chartered items: EAP-NOOB, and BRSKI with TEAP.
The WG discussed remaining outstanding issues for draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-29. Version -30 was posted and will enter WGLC shortly. draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id and draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticator are now in WGLC. With some minors tweaks draft-ietf-tls-grease will also be ready for WGLC. draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate, which was adopted since IETF102, will be revised to indicate which RFCs normatively depend on TLS 1.0 and 1.1 and then will likely be ready for WGLC. Changes to draft-ietf-tls-esni (i.e., using ENSI RRType instead of TXT record) and its operational issues (i.e., hardfails and multi-CDNs) were discussed. The draft needs additional reviews from DNS folks. draft-housley-tls-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk was scoped down to be for external PSKs for initial handshakes. The sense of the room was to adopt the draft as a WG Item. This will be confirmed on list. draft-tls-certieee1609 will be used as the basis for a TLS Certificate Type code point request. The WG will not consider it for adoption. draft-wood-tls-external-psk-importer was discussed as a way forward for external PSKs with TLS 1.3. More discussion and comparison to draft-davidben-tls-universal-psk is needed. Updates to draft-wood-tls-ticketrequests were discussed. The WG considers it a potential WG item. This will be confirmed on list. The WG had a lengthy discussion about draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension and there was WG consensus to drop the draft as a WG item.
As of IETF 102: ACME met Tuesday afternoon. It was a very productive meeting. This status also serves as a reminder that we need 90 minutes next time. :) Or the chair(s) need to be more ruthless about enforcing the unreasonable time limits. The agenda was augmented by two last-minute presentations, from the ANRW/hotRFC and SECDISPATCH. The first was on scope and some mitigation for IP address use-after-free, and the second was on using ACME for STAR. Both had good discussion, and are likely to be taken up by the WG soon. So this is a point in favor of those forums. In other work, the WG accepted a PR that addresses the last AD comments, and is redoing WGLC in parallel with IESG review. The ALPN and IP documents will be moved to WGLC. The email docs need another draft and then hopefully move to WGLC. Everyone should read the Authority Token documents.
The ACE working group met on Monday in the first session. The CWT document has gone to the RFC Editor since the last meeting and the associated POP CWT draft is expected to progress to the IESG before Montreal. The WG adopted the EST over CoAP draft after some heavy modifications with some of the work going to the ANIMA group. During the week there has been a start at getting some interop testing done with the OAuth framework using the DTLS profile which has started to show some promise. We are going to try to have a couple of virtual interop events over the next couple of months with the goal of having enough by Montreal to be able to be comfortable with going to WGLC then. As part of this work we will need to look at getting the OSCORE profile tested as well. There were some non-working (future work) presented dealing with group messaging authorization scenarios that was presented where some re-factorization work had been done to combine pieces that are common between the two drafts. The WG then has some discussions on a key establishment protocol EDHOC with comparison of message sizes and numbers between that proposal and using TLS to do key establishment transporting the TLS messages inside of CoAP. While the two protocols have similar results under the UDP scenario, they have different results when looking at the 6TiSH world where packets are restricted in size.
The lamps WG met on Monday of IETF 100. The current status of the WG documents was covered. The Internationalization updates for RFC5280 has been approved for publication. The other three original drafts are in the process of going from the WG to the IESG. We had a presentation on the CAA Discovery algorithm and what the current problems are. The group indicated that it would like to get a document for what the current algorithm is with the errata applied, and would then entertain a new document to deal with problems found using that algorithm. The final presentations dealt with getting SHAKE added as a hash algorithm to the various signature algorithms being used in PKIX and CMS applications today. Discussion on the current state of DSA indicated that the WG was not interested in adding SHAKE to DSA.
The Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) BoF was held on Monday during the afternoon II session . This proposed WG intends to focus on defining a firmware update solution that will be usable on Class 1 devices (as defined in RFC 7228), which may also apply to more capable devices as well. The BoF was well attended both in-person and remotely. The discussion focused on review of the charter, with a series of hums leading to some changes to the charter text. The revised charter has been posted . Comments to the SUIT list supporting the charter or focused on charter text changes are appreciated.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/agenda-100-suit/  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-suit/
Updates since Prague: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis went through IETF LC and is waiting for AD writeup. The WG-related work draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die also went through IETF LC and is waiting for a decision from the IESG on the right way to update/obsolete/move-to-historic an Informational document such as RFC 4757 (the RC4 kerberos enctypes). Our main active work items are draft-ietf-kitten-krb-spake-preauth and draft-ietf-kitten-channel-bound-flag, both of which hit some stumbling blocks as we gained implementation experience. Some coordination is needed between draft-ietf-kitten-krb-spake-preauth and draft-irtf-cfrg-spake2, which is underway. Lower priority ongoing work is to move more GSSAPI and Kerberos registries to IANA control, and publish draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility and draft-ietf-kitten-krb-service-discovery (which have deployed implementations). We received proposals for some potential new work items: a "hashed token" (i.e., resumption) SASL mechanism, and a generic way to communicate password quality/attribute requirements, and are assessing whether there is sufficient interest to merit WG adoption.
OpenPGP update for IETF 96 OpenPGP has established draft-ietf-openpgp-4880bis as a working group draft, and the IETF 96 session was spent discussing the changes that need to be made with respect to 4880, concentrating on those for which the resolution is uncertain. Some issues will go to the mailing list for further discussion, including fingerprinting, MTI profile, and the list of algorithms to be deprecated. There was also a brief discussion about how to handle the algorithm registry, with a proposal to use the normal code points only for IETF-recommended algorithms, and to allow any others to be registered, FCFS, as OIDs. Discussion will go to the mailing list.
The JOSE WG did not meet in Berlin. The chairs and the AD hope to resolve the status of the final document before the F2F meeting ends. After that is resolved then the WG should be ready to close. Jim
Web and Internet Transport (WIT)
TCPM works on some standards-track documents as well as several experimental and informational documents, which are all comprehensively reviewed prior to publication. It is focused on updates to the TCP protocol.
Following completion of a set of drafts on Explicit Congestion Notifictaion, Working Group Last Calls (WGLC) are expected for work on L4S. Work continues on development of SCTP, including replacing RFC 4960. The working group remains the home for work on UDP. It is also responsible for maintaining DiffServ, PLPMTUD, and other mechanisms that apply across transport protocols.
Since IETF95 meeting, draft-ietf-taps-transports (addressing the first deliverable) is in the IESG evaluation state and after addressing reviews it is now scheduled for telechat. The UDP transport usage draft has been updated and there was discussions on merger of this to draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage draft or keeping this as a separate draft. There was at least no opposition on keeping it separate. In the IETF95 meeting, it was said that if they are separate they should be moved together. The group is picking up on the third milestone. There has been discussion on the "northbound" information in IETF96 meeting, draft-grinnemo-taps-he discusses the happy-eye ball approach for transport protocol selection, recently a draft (draft-trammell-post-sockets) has been posted addressing the possibilities of post socket era, industry player like Apple - talking about the considerations transport protocol for real-world API, real-time applications are in the discussions too (draft-mcquistin-taps-low-latency-services). This give an indication that TAPS could nurse number of interesting ideas which can be very useful for transport protocol evolution and could be good input to the newly formed working group like QUIC.