Subject: [dispatch] dispatch 94 meeting notes - summary

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:00:51 +0900

Hi all,

Below are summary notes from the meeting in Yokohama.

Thanks,

Jean

DISPATCH WG - IETF 94 -  November 2015

Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Location: Room 502

Chairs: Mary Barnes, Cullen Jennings, Murray Kucherawy

Note takers: Jean Mahoney and Richard Barnes
Jabber Scribe: Jonathan Lennox
Jabber log: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/dispatch/2015-11-04.html

---------------------------------------------------------
13:00-13:10  Agenda and Status
Presenter: Mary Barnes
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dispatch-1.pdf

Mary announced that DISPATCH now has three chairs. Murray Kucherawy has 
joined from the former Apps area.

The agenda was updated with the removal of the HTTP problem statement 
presentation.

Mark Nottingham announced that he was updating RFC 5988, Web Linking 
(draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis), and would bring it to the list when it 
was ready.

ACTION: Mark Nottingham to bring RFC5988bis to the list when ready.
DONE: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/t7M03TQsr8qScwkxxkY9sTirwnc

Mary reminded the room that Dispatch has earlier deadlines for IETF 
meetings. However work can be dispatched on list, and doesn't have to 
wait for a meeting.

---------------------------------------------------------
13:10-13:25 *Updated* DISPATCH WG charter (chairs, WG)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/BhiAC1FENumiAa9NKpNxiB1Fwdk
Presenter: Mary Barnes
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dispatch-1.pdf

Robert Sparks pointed out that red text in otherwise black text was not 
an effective highlighting mechanism for people with colorblindness.

Barry Leiba emphasized that DISPATCH would not do any standards work. 
The only work would be simple administrative tasks like creating drafts 
for IANA registration.

Alissa Cooper thought the wording "The privacy of the network" was 
strange and will send text.

ACTION: Alissa Cooper to send feedback on the Charter to the list.
DONE: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ldp8MwSy6NOoEafVOs3YbXautO0

Murray said that people liked the Monday appsawg meeting when WGs gave 
status, and that there will be an ART area general meeting to summarize 
wg status in Buenos Aires. Ben Campbell clarified that the summaries 
will cover new work and highlights, not everything worked on since the 
last meeting.

No one else had comments on the charter.

---------------------------------------------------------
13:25-13:55 An Opportunistic Approach for Secure Real-time Transport 
Protocol
Presenter: Alan Johnston
Document: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnston-dispatch-osrtp/
charter proposal: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/u4-gTan844X8_Vs0JVLWGbIg47g
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dispatch-0.pdf

Martin Thomson had a correction for slide 8: Approach Continued, saying 
that we rely on authenticated signaling channel for DTLS-SRTP.

Jonathan Lennox said that the point of opportunistic security was that, 
although it might allow MITM, it was better than nothing.

Magnus Westerlund wasn't sure if MIKEY would work.

ACTION: Verify which, if any, MIKEY modes work.

Jon said that the weakest security option could be picked and it could 
be problematic. Alan said the draft could use feedback on the security 
options and it listed alternatives, not preferences. Jon wanted to 
ensure all options listed were appropriate.

Jonathan requested that the motivational text include why no one uses 
Cap-Neg, which had the same goal as this draft, and asked if this 
document would obsolete Cap-Neg.

Cullen, as chair, said that the draft would be dispatched, and although 
a charter was included in the presentation, a working group was not 
going to be created.

Alan asked for solid reviews.

Roni Even said that RFC 5763 would need to be updated.

Christer Holmberg supported this work, saying that it goes hand-in-hand 
with DTLS-SDP.

Richard Barnes was uncomfortable with including SDES in the options and 
would prefer it removed. He did not believe the draft should be a BCP 
since anything in the middle could downgrade the security. He also felt 
that, due to differences between AVP and SAVP, complexity would be 
introduced.

Alan pointed out that most secure devices use SDES and that restricting 
SDES would leave them out.

Jonathan Lennox pointed out a limitation with early media.

ACTION: Alan to document the early media limitation.

A participant from Deutsche Telekom supported this work, and spoke 
against Cap-Neg.

Jonathan and Christer said that the work should be done in MMUSIC. 
Cullen didn't want the room to focus on where the work should be done, 
but on whether the work should be done.

Charles Eckel supported this work, and said that he had an implementation.

Mary, as chair, took a hum:

Should we do the work in the ART area? many hums and hums in the Jabber 
room.

Should we not work on this problem? one hum

RESULTS of hum: strong consensus for the ART area doing the work.

Richard reiterated that the middle could force security down and said 
allowing calls to go through can create barriers to implementing 
security since it doesn't motivate people to fix the security issue. 
Richard recommended creating minimum security requirements.

Jon wanted the ability to vote security options "off the island", but 
understood Alan's response to SDES. Jon said that the negotiation 
mechanism could be separate from a security BCP.

Richard did not want the draft to be considered a BCP, and wanted 
caveats that it was a transition technology.

Charles said that causing calls to fail will cause security not to be 
turned on. When both sides can support it, it can be turned on without 
disrupting calls.

Alan Ford supported this work.

Jonathan mentioned an extension [ajm: that I missed], but Alan said that 
it didn't solve the problem.

Richard pointed out that web browsers show open or closed lock icons to 
indicate the security state; phones don't have those icons. Cullen and 
Mary said some do. Richard wanted it to be clear that the user may not 
receive indication of the security state.

---------------------------------------------------------
13:55-14:10 HTTP problem statement
Presenter: Mark Nottingham
Document: 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nottingham-http-problem-07.txt

Not covered

---------------------------------------------------------
14:10-14:25 The font Primary Content type
Presenter: Mark Nottingham on behalf of W3C
Document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lilley-font-toplevel-00
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dispatch-3.pdf

Mark said that there was support in apps-discuss, but no one wrote the 
draft, but W3C wants it to happen now and they wrote the draft.

John Levine, Sean Leonard, Tony Hansen asked if there was a community 
that wanted it and would implement it. Wendy Seltzer said there was an 
active web fonts group in W3C that want to use this and was working on 
drafts.

Martin said that fonts were approaching Turing complete and suspicion 
was warranted. Richard said that browsers determine if content is safe 
based on media type, and that it may not be safe to put fonts in a 
primary content type.

Barry said that fonts fit the model of a top level type. Barry supported 
the work and it would go to a new working group. The work had to be 
standards track.

Murray and Cullen, as chairs, said that the next step is for people 
interested in the work to create a charter. Then the chairs would look 
at the charter. Mark was happy with the plan.

ACTION: People interested in font Primary Content type to create a 
charter for the work.

---------------------------------------------------------
draft-west-webappsec-csp-reg

Mark asked if draft-west-webappsec-csp-reg, which is requesting a 
registry for CSP directives, could be AD sponsored.

Murray, as chair, felt that the draft fell under house-keeping and could 
be done in DISPATCH. Barry, as AD, said that he would let the chairs 
decide, and would AD-sponsor if they decided not to handle it in 
DISPATCH. Alissa, as AD, saw no reason to do the work in the independent 
stream. Richard was fine with doing the work in DISPATCH.

ACTION: WG to review draft-west-webappsec-csp-reg and send comments to 
the list.

ACTION: Mark to send a pointer to the list.
DONE: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/SOfXJMCaId3kg2GfSIpoCR8IQe0

---------------------------------------------------------
14:25-14:40  Ultra Low Latency for realtime applications
Presenter: Koen De Schepper
Proposal (including related drafts):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/vn2Ew1MsmvnCeizFVx5dBoYS0z8
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dispatch-2.pdf

Mary, as chair, pointed out that the presentation was informational, and 
a decision was not needed.

Richard asked if the application needed to do anything. Koen said only 
TCP stacks needed to be updated to support scalable TCP.

Ben thought it was interesting, but that the room could not determine 
cost or implications. He felt it was a TSV topic. Koen agreed.

Bob Briscoe clarified that scalable TCP can only be used in a data 
center, since it's too aggressive, and pushes other traffic out of the 
way. The queuing system would enable use outside of the data center.

ACTION: Bob Briscoe to send pointers to the list.
DONE: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/VDPX0Hzj21vbQJ7N9C9n-iVuafc

---------------------------------------------------------
Wrap-up

Cullen announced that draft-west-webappsec-csp-reg, which was just 
dispatched, was already in LC.

Richard said that the work was dispatched with dispatch.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 02:59:36 -0600

Thank you Jean - this is awesome!

Mary.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:00 AM, A. Jean Mahoney <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> (draft-nottingham-rfc5988bis), and would bring it to the list when it was
> ready.
>
> meetings. However work can be dispatched on list, and doesn't have to wait
> for a meeting.
>
>
>
> Robert Sparks pointed out that red text in otherwise black text was not an
> effective highlighting mechanism for people with colorblindness.
>
> Barry Leiba emphasized that DISPATCH would not do any standards work. The
> only work would be simple administrative tasks like creating drafts for
> IANA registration.
>
> Alissa Cooper thought the wording "The privacy of the network" was strange
> and will send text.
>
> status, and that there will be an ART area general meeting to summarize wg
> status in Buenos Aires. Ben Campbell clarified that the summaries will
> cover new work and highlights, not everything worked on since the last
> meeting.
>
> Jon said that the weakest security option could be picked and it could be
> problematic. Alan said the draft could use feedback on the security options
> and it listed alternatives, not preferences. Jon wanted to ensure all
> options listed were appropriate.
>
> Cap-Neg, which had the same goal as this draft, and asked if this document
> would obsolete Cap-Neg.
>
> Cullen, as chair, said that the draft would be dispatched, and although a
> charter was included in the presentation, a working group was not going to
> be created.
>
> would prefer it removed. He did not believe the draft should be a BCP since
> anything in the middle could downgrade the security. He also felt that, due
> to differences between AVP and SAVP, complexity would be introduced.
>
> A participant from Deutsche Telekom supported this work, and spoke against
> Cap-Neg.
>
> Jonathan and Christer said that the work should be done in MMUSIC. Cullen
> didn't want the room to focus on where the work should be done, but on
> whether the work should be done.
>
> allowing calls to go through can create barriers to implementing security
> since it doesn't motivate people to fix the security issue. Richard
> recommended creating minimum security requirements.
>
> understood Alan's response to SDES. Jon said that the negotiation mechanism
> could be separate from a security BCP.
>
> Richard did not want the draft to be considered a BCP, and wanted caveats
> that it was a transition technology.
>
> indicate the security state; phones don't have those icons. Cullen and Mary
> said some do. Richard wanted it to be clear that the user may not receive
> indication of the security state.
>
>
> John Levine, Sean Leonard, Tony Hansen asked if there was a community that
> wanted it and would implement it. Wendy Seltzer said there was an active
> web fonts group in W3C that want to use this and was working on drafts.
>
> Martin said that fonts were approaching Turing complete and suspicion was
> warranted. Richard said that browsers determine if content is safe based on
> media type, and that it may not be safe to put fonts in a primary content
> type.
>
> interested in the work to create a charter. Then the chairs would look at
> the charter. Mark was happy with the plan.
>
> ACTION: People interested in font Primary Content type to create a charter
> for the work.
>
>
> Mark asked if draft-west-webappsec-csp-reg, which is requesting a registry
> for CSP directives, could be AD sponsored.
>
> decide, and would AD-sponsor if they decided not to handle it in DISPATCH.
> Alissa, as AD, saw no reason to do the work in the independent stream.
> Richard was fine with doing the work in DISPATCH.
>
> ACTION: WG to review draft-west-webappsec-csp-reg and send comments to the
> list.
>
> Mary, as chair, pointed out that the presentation was informational, and a
> decision was not needed.
>
> Richard asked if the application needed to do anything. Koen said only TCP
> stacks needed to be updated to support scalable TCP.
>
> Ben thought it was interesting, but that the room could not determine cost
> or implications. He felt it was a TSV topic. Koen agreed.
>
> Bob Briscoe clarified that scalable TCP can only be used in a data center,
> since it's too aggressive, and pushes other traffic out of the way. The
> queuing system would enable use outside of the data center.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>