Subject: [babel] Draft Babel Minutes uploaded

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 23:56:37 -0500

Draft minutes of the Babel WG meeting in Singapore have been uploaded
to the meeting materials:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/minutes-100-babel/

Thanks to Barbara Stark for taking the raw minutes.

Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Denis Ovsienko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:20:51 +0000

---- On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 04:56:37 +0000 Donald Eastlake  wrote ---- 
>Thanks to Barbara Stark for taking the raw minutes. 

Thanks for posting the minutes. Those do not include the comments I made on Jabber, so let me follow up on the mailing list in an attempt to progress some further work.

As far as the Babel security slides from IETF 100 go, I do not oppose the statements made in the document. My main concern is that the working group has already had this same discussion at IETF 96 ([1] page 13) and roughly agreed where to go next. Shall we actually proceed and discuss the options in particular technical terms? If yes, this brings us to the next question.

A DTLS-based Babel security design has been discussed as an option since at least the pre-WG BoF, but a public specification of it still does not exist (corrections are very welcome). Would anybody like to specify (and defend if necessary) the potential DTLS-based mechanism for Babel? Ideally this should be an I-D but even a few pages of quality technical description on the mailing list would be better than nothing.

1: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-babel-2.pdf

-- 

    Denis Ovsienko

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:16:21 +0100

Hi Denis,

> A DTLS-based Babel security design has been discussed as an option since
> at least the pre-WG BoF,

Note that this is just an option.  I'd very much like to see a revised
revision of RFC 7298 (one without the security issue you outlined in
Prague).

Denis, both RFC 7298 and DTLS have a niche: RFC 7298 is great if you're
implementing from scratch, or when you want to use multicast; DTLS is
great if you already have a DTLS stack and you don't care about multicast.

> but a public specification of it still does not exist (corrections are
> very welcome). Would anybody like to specify (and defend if necessary)
> the potential DTLS-based mechanism for Babel?

I think we should implement it first, and specify later.  Antonin and
myself are working on it, but don't expect anything to happen until after
exam season is over (in January).

> Ideally this should be an I-D but even a few pages of quality technical
> description on the mailing list would be better than nothing.

Once we have an implementation, we'll write up an Internet Draft.  I'll
welcome co-authors, assuming they are active implementers.

-- Juliusz