Status updates

RTG Routing Area

Meeting: 15:20-17:50 Thursday Afternoon session II, Chris Morrow chairing

WG highlights and status summary:

	• one new RFC since last IETF
	• 12 drafts in or past publication requested status
		• 4 in AD Evaluation, 2 in IETF Last Call
	• 7 drafts still active in the working group
	• Great level of comment from the AD on BGPsec protocol
	• SIDR will be moving work to SIDROps - short discussion of SIDROps on agenda
	• two interop/testing discussions on agenda

(Sandy Murphy not present in Seoul)

SEC Security Area

We have not published any new RFCs since Chicago, but sent                          
draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis to the IESG.  A related document                       
sent to curdle to avoid conflict-of-interest due to dual author/chair               
role (draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die) is in IETF LC.                     
A newly adopted document (draft-ietf-kitten-krb-spake-preauth) and                  
an older one (draft-ietf-kitten-channel-bound-flag) are seeing                      
implementation experience and nearly done.  We should also try to                   
finish up work moving some Kerberos and GSS-API registries to IANA,                 
as well as our other adopted WG items.                                              
We are also in the middle of a search for a new co-chair to replace                 
Matthew Miller -- thanks for your long service, Matt!
The DDoS protection draft and the Safecurvers are published as RFCs. The mandatory to implement crypto algorithm drafts (rfc4307bis, rfc7321bis) have been approved by the IESG. TCP Encapsulation is in RFC editor queue. EdDSA is ready for IETF LC.

Split DNS and Implicit IV were adopted and both of them should be getting ready for WGLC. Quantum resistance is also progressing, and there is new interest about non-PSK based quantum resistance methods.
As of IETF-97:

ACME met Wednesday.  Since the last IETF we resolved almost all issues on our main document, and at the meeting we agreed on proposed resolution for all others. When the new draft is issued, we’ll enter WGLC and promote this as an “implementor’s draft,” like HTTP-bis did. We’ll consider it frozen until next IETF, and either re-enter last call or forward up for IESG review at the next IETF.

We had also adopted a CAA draft, had an initial presentation from Yaron on short-lived certs, and a heads-up on STIR interest on using ACME to get certs for phones.  So between now and the next IETF we’ll also have discussion about re-chartering to add these new work items. 
SACM met on Tuesday (2016-11-15) at 9:30 for 2.5 hours, and we discussed our architectural approach, how to get software identifiers collected from endpoints, and open issues with our information model.  We also started considering how we can keep our information model minimized but extendable based on some real-world state collection data.  

Next steps include enumerating the functions/interfaces and data that we need flowing through the SACM environment to support our vulnerability assessment scenario. 
This was the first meeting of the LAMPS WG.  The group covered three topics:

1) Adding authenticated-encryption algorithms with S/MIME.  The WG adopted draft-schaad-rfc5651-bis, and once it is published as an RFC, it will obsolete RFC 5751.  It was observed that a corresponding document to obsolete RFC 5750 will also be needed.

2) Email Address Internationalization (EAI) and Certificates.  The WG adopted draft-melnikov-spasm-eai-addresses, which suggests carrying smtputf8Name as an OtherName in the Certificate.  Once this document is published as an RFC, it will update RFC 5280.

3) The CURDLE WG asked this WG for a recommendation regarding CFRG Elliptic Curve algorithm identification in certificates.  The people in the room unanimously recommended that the same object identifiers be used for SubjectPublicKeyInfo.algorithm and Certificate.signatureAlgorithm and SignerInfo.signatureAlgorithm, and that this is used to identify the curve as well as the operation (signature, pre-hash signature, or key agreement).
MILE met at IETF 96 at 10:00 on Thursday.
There were about 45 - 50 attendees in the room and Jabber.

[working group drafts]

1. RFC5070-bis will be published as an RFC soon.

Update after the WGLC was shared during the session, and the attendee seems to very happy to publish the draft as an RFC.

2. implement draft will be published as an RFC soon.

Though no presentation was done this time, we see no problem to proceed.

3. ROLIE draft was refined so that we can pursue submission to IESG by November.

The original ROLIE draft will be divided into two documents.
One is for general information exchange purpose, while the other is for incident-response specific purposes.

4. Review was requested for xmpp-grid and guidance drafts.

The content of the drafts seem to be good, but we need more review. We have seen quite many candidate reviewers for the drafts.

[individual draft]

1. the draft on JSON binding of IODEF is considered to be an WG draft.

The attendee today seem to be happy to make it as a WG draft, but we will ask consensus on this on the mailing list.
The TLS working group met on Tuesday morning. We are continuing progress on TLS 1.3. Main discussion points included a change in the cipher suite model from a monolithic ID approach to a menu based approach. During the Hackathon on Saturday we had 7 different TLS 1.3 implementations achieve interoperability to various degrees. We expect to have a draft (probably -16) that "freezes" the wire format at the end of next month available for broad review by the cryptographic and security modeling communities. We plan on holding working group last call before the next IETF.  
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.
Trans is not meeting at IETF 96, although we have had a side meeting.  The core deliverable has been through working group last call and requires revision, as does our threat analysis document.  The gossip draft is starting to look reasonably well-cooked, and this weekend Linus announced that he had a DNSSEC log server up and running. 
CURDLE did not meet at IETF-96. A discussion about OID assignments for curves will be held as part of the LAMPS session.

TSV Transport Area

The coupled-cc draft has been submitted to the IESG for review. The SCReAM and SBD drafts are ready and the chairs are in the process of writing them up for publication. NADA is being revised to address WG last call comments. The GCC draft is awaiting an update from the authors. The feedback design team has come to consensus on a proposal (draft-dt-rmcat-feedback-message-02) that has been passed to AVTCORE for development. The various evaluation and test criteria drafts are essentially done, and are expected to be submitted to the IESG by IETF 100. The group agreed that there was value in completing the cc-codec-interactions and framework drafts, but that the app-interactions draft has been largely superseded by events. The group has begun discussions on what evaluation is needed to move the candidate algorithms to Proposed Standard in future. 
Four TSVWG drafts have been published as RFCs:  Circuit Breakers, UDP Guidelines GRE in UDP and Diffserv Interconnection. There are two TSVWG drafts at the RFC Editor in MISSREF state (waiting for referenced RFCs to arrive):WebRTC Diffserv usage and DTLS encapsulation of SCTP.

Working Group Last Calls (WGLC) have been completed for three drafts: Tunnel Congestion Feedback (follow-up with the authors), 802.11 (WiFi) Diffserv (reviews received, a revised ID is needed) and SCTP stream scheduling/interleaving (a revised ID is needed).  

The ECN experimentation enablement draft and the Diffserv LE (Lower Effort) PHB drafts were recently adopted, but are close to done.   

The following drafts require feedback and work by the working group:
* RFC 4960 Errata
* SCTP NAT Support
* ECN Encaps Guidelines (recently discussed in external liaisons).
* RFC 6040 Update

The L4S drafts are likely to be an active area of WG activity in 2017.

The AQM (Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling) WG is nearing the end of its life - future AQM-related work is likely to be done in TSVWG.
The WG drafts on the encryption negotiation option (TCP-ENO) and unauthenticated encryption mechanism (tcpcrypt) have completed WG Last Call - the RFC publication requests for both drafts are expected to be submitted by the end of the Chicago meeting week or earlier.  The TLS-based work for tcpinc has been postponed because finishing TLS 1.3 is higher priority for the TLS experts.

A draft on (sockets) API extensions, primarily for TCP-ENO, has been adopted by the WG - the chairs are looking for additional interest in working on that draft, as well as interest in additional implementation(s) of TCP-ENO and tcpcrypt.
Editors are working on -01 drafts in preparation for Chicago; we continue to work through a healthy issues list.
TCPM works on some standards-track documents as well as several experimental and informational documents, which are all comprehensively reviewed prior to publication.

Currently the working group finishes the documents that describe the CUBIC congestion control and Datacenter TCP (DCTCP). The working group will met during IETF 98 in Chicago.
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.     
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.
Both TURN bis and STUN bis are really close to being ready for WGLC. Most of the other working group items are either ready for WGLC or past-WGLC. So, we TRAM WG will likely be able to complete its chartered work, declare victory, and close down in the near future.
In Buenos Aires, the IPPM WG discussed the two remaining items on its Orlando charter, a metric registry (for use in LMAP) and the experimental draft on model-based metrics for bulk capacity measurement. draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-06 has passed WGLC, and will be held for any additional input that comes from the process of filling in the initial registry entries draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry before being submitted to the IESG. draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-07 requires another revision before second WGLC, which will take place by 1 June 2016.

The meeting indicated support for adopting draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-02 (as draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6) and draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format-03 (WG doc name TBD), to be confirmed on the list. The meeting discussed adopting "coloring" based hybrid measurement drafts, for a call for adoption to take place on the list.

IRTF Internet Research Task Force