Subject: [core] Summary of first meeting at IETF95

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:30:40 -0300

Here is my summary of what we did on Tuesday.
Fixes/additions welcome; details are in the draft minutes at
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-95-core

On Tuesday:

* Andrew indicated that he plans to step down as a WG chair and that
  the ADs are looking for a replacement.
* As periodically, the AD is changing; this time from a graybeard
  (Barry) to a blackbeard (Alexey).
* The chairs apologize for the infrequently updated milestones; fixing
  them is up next.
* draft-ietf-core-block–19 is in IESG Evaluation, telechat date is
  2016–04–21.
* heads-up for new individual drafts: draft-kivinen-802-15-ie and
  draft-bormann-6lo-coap-802-15-ie.
* CoAP over TCP received extensive discussion.  Results (all to be
  confirmed on the mailing list):
  * #396: We revert the decision in Yokohama and go with alternative
    L3.  Procedurally, the pain of this reversal is balanced by the
    reduced pain of not having to convince OCF to change their
    specification.  Technically, L3 is more open to evolving ideas about
    message sizes.  In any case, there is no intent to modify or
    revoke section 4.6 of RFC 7252 at this time.
  * We will need to examine the various proposals to add signaling to
    the TCP connection (settings, ping/pong, release/abort).
    Signaling messages (7.xx) is one possible mechanism for doing that.
  * #387 (ALPN): We really need to make a decision here.
  * Websockets: For merging the websockets draft into the TCP/TLS WG
    document (with the websockets specific parts going to an
    appendix), the authors of both drafts will discuss the merge.
* Multi-hop Security: Initial discussion of
  draft-hartke-core-e2e-security-reqs.
  * It is more well-defined what is being protected in a
    request-response that spans a proxy than with a pub-sub broker.
  * The current set of scenarios does not include the case that
    security services are being performed by the intermediary.
    Many such scenarios are conceivable; which ones have serious use
    cases?
  * Multicast (or, more generally, group communication) is not yet
    being considered.
* Data Formats: WG to adopt SenML (to be confirmed on the mailing
  list).  After a bit of Brownian motion, the WG is now happy with the
  way the data is formatted in -06 (base record with data, zero or
  more records with more data).  The addition of links in the data is
  to be done by registering a senml label in core-links-json
  ("reversing the arrow of dependency").

Friday meeting upcoming.

Grüße, Carsten