[core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 09 December 2019 22:42 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761E4120113 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:42:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CxHnHD84hgeD for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C94C120086 for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from client-0059.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0059.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47Wyqk2trzz161X; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:42:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 597624127.479866-bbb6148add716f3655faee5b3d96b9da
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:42:09 +0100
Message-Id: <E7EC797D-6219-48F9-861A-18BE43D85B72@tzi.org>
To: core <core@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/78LHFFyq9c1_t0-kAmuDKcTzc3c>
Subject: [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 22:42:15 -0000
We have uploaded draft minutes for the two CoRE meetings at IETF106: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-core As usual, this starts with a summary of what happened (with fewer technical details), followed by more detailed minutes as collected in Etherpad. Please send fixes and updates to core-chairs@ietf.org or to the mailing list, preferably within the next 7 days or at least before you dive into the holidays. For easier viewing and commenting, the summary part is replicated below. Grüße, Carsten # CoRE WG - Summary IETF106 (Constrained RESTful Environments WG, Draft Minutes 0.1) The core WG held two meetings at IETF 106 in Singapore, both of which are summarized in these minutes. Videos: : Wednesday (2019-11-20, 2 h): <https://youtu.be/YIHoiHhz2Ys?t=130> : Friday (2019-11-22, 1.5 h): <https://youtu.be/OkYDGZz0fGY?t=222> Slides: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-core-consolidated-slides> Raw minutes: <https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-106-core> Thanks to the note takers Niklas and Ivaylo! ## Working Group Document Status In RFC-Editor’s Queue: * draft-ietf-core-multipart-ct-04 In IESG processing: * draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-07: Alexey explained that the "Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed" status is due to the open question why this cannot be mapped to HTTP. Carsten proposed defining a generic HTTP header field for "tunneling" CoAP options, outside this document. (With that, the draft has since transitioned to the RFC-Editor's Queue on 2019-11-26.) * draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-23: In AD Evaluation, substatus "Revised I-D Needed". As was further discussed in the Friday meeting, the main open point is the question whether the reference to the much less well-advanced RD-DNS-SD draft needs to be normative. The outcome of the discussion was that the resource-directory draft should simply define the small number of DNS-SD service types that are needed for resource directory discovery, with details to be taken to the list. * draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-03: Status "Waiting for Writeup". Some need for clarification that the secondary registry SHOULD be implemented but the derived units still SHOULD NOT be used, and for the designated expert instructions. Concerns had been raised about opening up the second registry for derived units, making it harder for a SenML application to find out whether a unit encountered was actually of interest to it. Discussion in the first session resulted in the tentative proposal to mark secondary units with an asterisk (as in "*km/h", as opposed to unmarked "m/s"). Further discussion in the second session made clear that while this makes the use of secondary units stand out, it does not really improve the situation of SenML applications that want to quickly discard measurements for units they do not care about, unless they track the contents of the two registries, which would make the asterisks redundant. There also was some feedback the asterisks would make the adoption of the SenML units registry by other SDOs more difficult. The in-room consensus not to go for the asterisks, but to include more explanatory text about implementation strategies, needs to confirmed on the mailing list. Also, it was brought up that proactively registering remaining SI-based units in table 1 now might improve the stability of that table further on; this should be done in an independent effort (exercising the registry). * draft-ietf-core-senml-etch-05: IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed. Latest changes are on github, a few comments still to be addressed. In particular, there may be a need to select for units. Also, a decision needs to be made what happens if the selector in a patch record matches multiple records (proposal: error); need to double check idempotency, too. In Post-WGLC processing: * draft-ietf-core-stateless-03: Authors to update draft from WGLC input. (Done as of 2019-12-06 in draft-ietf-core-stateless-04.) * draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-08: Update made the deadline, now needs write-up from shepherd. Almost at WGLC: * draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-03: (expired), an ABNF problem needs to be fixed and the draft resubmitted before it can go directly into WG last-call. In WG adoption call: * draft-bormann-core-corr-clar-00: WG adoption call finished with only one item of feedback; in-room consensus was good before that; what should we do now? * draft-jarvinen-core-fasor-02: (adoption call runs until 2019-12-03) ## CoRECONF cluster * draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-11, draft-ietf-core-yang-library-00, draft-ietf-core-comi-08, draft-ietf-core-sid-07: Now ready for WGLC, to be sent to CoRE as well as netconf/netmod (with the discussion to happen on CoRE). (One comment on the numeric range of SIDs still to be taken care of.) ## Group communication cluster * draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-06: Ongoing. Moving to COSE-bis registries, discussing countersignature algorithms, details on key rollover. After this round, might be ready for WGLC; previous reviewers please vouch for that. Might need 7390bis (below) as a normative reference. * draft-tiloca-core-oscore-discovery-04: Reviewer volunteers are asked to provide reviews now. Also: The usual discussion of needing a registry for link target attributes (which is now possible according to the updated RFC 8288) ensued; Klaus might have a draft soon. * draft-tiloca-core-observe-multicast-notifications-01: New work first presented in Montreal; was revised with a simpler approach, which is could be summarized as the server redirecting a client to a multicast group by supplying a phantom request for that; this allows the server to choose a group and a token. In-room support, but probably needs more work, e.g., in congestion control. Need more reviewers now to make progress on this as a WG. * draft-dijk-core-groupcomm-bis-02: intended normative successor of (and obsoleting) RFC 7390 (dropping the experimental RESTful protocol that has not been picked up), with some initial reviews already addressed. In-room consensus to adopt as a WG document; to be confirmed on the mailing list. Then, before WGLC, we should ascertain implementation support for the whole breadth of the draft. ## SenML cluster (See also documents in IESG, above.) * draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-01: updated with feedback from IETF105, still grappling with potential conflicts between "ct" and "ct_". * draft-keranen-core-senml-base-prefix-00 (ipr #3662): need to look closer at use cases and find out how this is not a practical problem in LWM2M usage so far. This draft could be combined with Hannes' draft; more analysis is needed. ## CoRE Applications Klaus led the group through a review of results from Tuesday's side meeting. As a result, the following new draft was published already: * draft-fossati-core-coap-problem-00: The draft uses custom CBOR, but the information could also be mapped to CoRAL. More discussion needed. With respect code point management (numeric identifiers), we might want to learn from the CoRECONF SID approach for other code point spaces, too. Also, some more thinking is needed about error responses that encode application results; some of this has been added in RFC 8132 (FETCH/PATCH): 4.09 ("conflict", i.e., application would reach unwanted state), 4.22 (unprocessable entity); do we want to add more? * draft-ietf-core-coral-01, draft-ietf-core-href-01: small update was needed so far. * draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-09: Proposal for update was discussed in Montreal; feature parity with existing -09 not yet reached. draft-hartke-t2trg-coral-pubsub-00 explores how CoRAL might be used for enabling publish/subscribe-style communication over CoAP. Various other T2TRG drafts make use of CoRAL, e.g., draft-hartke-t2trg-coral-reef-03 and draft-hartke-t2trg-data-hub-05, and should be considered in this context. It also turns out that draft-tiloca-ace-oscore-gm-admin-01 is very similar in structure to pubsub. Carsten presented a proposed timeline for completing CoRAL: stable at IETF107, implemented and validated at IETF108, WGLC mid-2020. Klaus agreed that a lot of validation has already happened. Also, a question came up whether there should be a JSON serialization of CoRAL (there are two proposals for that now — do we need both?). ## Flextime Francesca brought up the integration of EDHOC (draft-selander-lake-edhoc-00) and OSCORE (RFC 8613) — can the third EDHOC message (maybe 20 bytes) be integrated with the first OSCORE message? Two proposals have been made (by Mališa and Jim); this needs discussion. Francesca brought up a third approach, where both the EDHOC and the OSCORE messages are included in the payload. Christian pointed out that this would be combining two different REST requests, and Carsten suggested thinking about piggybacking in a more general sense. Carsten promised to come up with a schedule for virtual interim WG meetings that is a bit lighter than the two-week cadence we had before IETF106.
- [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes Cullen Jennings
- Re: [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes Jaime Jimenez
- Re: [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes Jaime Jiménez
- Re: [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes Ari Keränen
- Re: [core] CoRE @ IETF106: Summary and Minutes Cullen Jennings