[core] CoRE@IETF100: Summary
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 17 November 2017 05:46 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 1AA7F128796 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:46:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 XxR0GgIPBO0L for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F208F12778E for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:46:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAH5k47Z005765 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:46:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:20f5:80e5:9ea4:dd33] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:20f5:80e5:9ea4:dd33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ydRtM3WnGzDWkb; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:46:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 532590359.78054-ed0d61caf41a6ed3c4af7c13dda02083
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:45:59 +0800
Message-Id: <07B87C8C-FBE3-44E2-8EB7-F25F580ED0B4@tzi.org>
To: core <core@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/esEXc8IhsqAYmaH-Yo-NN_K66tk>
Subject: [core] CoRE@IETF100: Summary
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:46:12 -0000
Below is the chairs’ summary of what happened in CoRE at IETF100. Corrections (and additions that keep the summary form) appreciated. Detailed minutes are being prepared; see link to raw minutes below. Grüße, Carsten CoRE WG - Summary IETF100 ========================= * Video Recordings: [Sessopn 1](https://youtu.be/wd_kXam1lIw), Session 2 not yet available (?) * [Slides](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-core-consolidated-slides/) * [Raw minutes](https://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-100-core) ## In IESG processing * draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls is in IESG processing, waiting for Mirja's DISCUSS to clear [it is now clear that this will be in December after her vacation]. The first interop on Saturday had 2.5 implementations (libcoap, augustcellars, and coap.me), with a CoAP GET performed on /.well-known/core (which exercises a lot of the machinery already). Editorial input from the interop should lead to a -11 soon. * [draft-ietf-core-links-json was not discussed at the meeting. It is in IESG processing, with a few DISCUSSes. Resolving these was delayed as technical questions needed to be addressed, including the fact that with RFC 8288 replacing RFC 5988, the ground on which RFC 6690 was built is shifting a bit (and this draft essentially complements RFC 6690). Some good input was provided by OCF at the 2017-11-10 OCF/T2TRG meeting, which will now enable these changes to be made. Another WGLC should then follow.] ## WGLC completed * draft-ietf-core-senml finished WGLC and needs some remaining minor updates, to be submitted to IESG in November. ## WGLC ongoing * draft-ietf-core-cocoa: WGLC has been started after the meeting, also soliciting feedback from ICCRG and TCPM. Dec 14 is the extended deadline. ## WGLC impending * draft-ietf-core-object-security will be ready for WGLC with some impending minor fixes in the next version. * draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag requires some editorial work (restructuring) and could be ready for WGLC after that. * draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor is stable, but hadn't had enough interop testing to enable a WGLC. Initial testing happened during the IETF100 hackathon now. After another round (and any attendant fixes), this will go for WGLC. * draft-ietf-core-comi and draft-ietf-core-sid need some more finishing touches, also probably with fixes coming from the interops (bi-weekly meetings to be continued). There was some discussion about cutting the plethora of request types in basic COMI down to just FETCH and PATCH (possbly with GET added), to be continued on the list. Completion expected quite soon. Tools to turn delta-SIDs and SIDs into human-readable strings would be necessary. * draft-ietf-core-resource-directory has seen quite a lot of progress in the last few months. Developers now should start updating their implementations as interops are coming up. Work over multiple transports (new URI-schemes) still to be done. The increased impetus needs to transfer to sister document draft-ietf-core-rd-dns-sd now. We expect to pass WGLC by IETF101. ## Working group drafts * draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub is sailing along and could get ready for WGLC with the next version. Implementation status to be collected. Early adoption of the new 4.29 response code (as requested by implementers of the OCF specification) was non-controversial; discussion centered around the best way to add response codes (a short draft for 4.29 could also include some other new response codes, if they are as non-controversial). * draft-ietf-core-dynlink and draft-ietf-core-interfaces had been in limbo for a while. With a new editor, the remaining editorial issues can be fixed. The documents are best kept separate. ## New Adoptions * draft-tiloca-core-multicast-oscoap had in-room consensus for adoption as a WG document in Prague already; this was newly confirmed; validation of the adoption decision on the mailing list is next. * draft-arkko-core-dev-urn had in-room consensus for WG adption, to be confirmed on the mailing list. ## New work * draft-birkholz-yang-push-coap-problemstatement was presented; the WG now needs to have a look into how YANG Push and telemetry requirements are going to relate to COMI and CoAP Observe. * draft-vanderstok-ace-coap-est poses a problem that draft-hartke-core-pending solves by proposing a new response code. Discussion centered around ways that a combination of existing response codes could be used instead (5.03 and 2.02), possibly with defining semantics for the Retry-After option for the access to a Location-* provided with a 2.02 -- this would avoid adding another "success" response code. * draft-hope-bailie-http-payments was presented as a heads-up; several participants stressed the relationship of the subject matter to ACE work. * draft-liu-core-coap-delay-attacks proposes a time-based approach to the freshness problem solved with a nonce in draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag; there was some good discussion that the authors were encouraged to use for a next version. More information about use cases that benefit from time-based freshness would be good. * draft-becker-core-coap-sms-gprs hadn't reached the threshold for WG adoption earlier; there is now some renewed interest. Coordination with LWM2M work will be needed. * draft-wang-core-opcua-transmission was presented as a way to map OPC/UA on CoAP. Discussion touched the issue whether OPC should be doing this or the IETF. In any case, the authors were encouraged to continue the work, talk to OPC as well and keep IETF involved. * draft-toutain-core-time-scale was presented, with some discussion on whether this should be per-request information or whether there could be some state. Hannes has a slide deck on how LWM2M handles sleeping nodes, which pose similar problems. Laurent promised to continue the work.
- [core] CoRE@IETF100: Summary Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoRE@IETF100: Summary Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [core] CoRE@IETF100: Summary Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoRE@IETF100: Summary Jaime Jiménez
- Re: [core] CoRE@IETF100: Summary Carsten Bormann