[core] Summary of second meeting at IETF95

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 09 April 2016 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8230712D6D6 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 07:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rM_iyYFK2kQy for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ECC712D5C1 for <core@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mfilter38-d.gandi.net (mfilter38-d.gandi.net []) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1818441C087; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 16:00:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter38-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:]) by mfilter38-d.gandi.net (mfilter38-d.gandi.net [::ffff:]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pe4IZ2uMi-vF; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 16:00:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nar.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E202141C08B; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 16:00:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <57090AFC.8090808@tzi.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 11:00:28 -0300
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/hTT6W-p66rhyCGfiuA__ByQU3nc>
Subject: [core] Summary of second meeting at IETF95
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 14:00:40 -0000

... and here is my summary of the Friday results.

Again, please send in fixes and additions; the raw details are still at
the same site: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-95-core
Big thanks to the note takers!

On Friday:

* Handoff of the Baton: Barry Leiba gave his farewall as CoRE's
  responsible AD; great applause of the WG.
* For the resource directory (RD) and related documents, we are aiming
  at WGLC before July 1st so we can discuss the outcome in Berlin and
  ship soon after.  There are quite a few things to do, many of which
  are on the editorial level (see slides, but also Akbar's "advanced
  RD" document; we will not try to put mirror server/pubsub support in
  the RD document now, though). The issues will managed on the WG
* There was in-room consensus to adopt draft-vanderstok-core-etch-00
  as a WG document.  This is needed to keep PATCH in the RD, but also
  for the management work (below).  To be verified on the mailing
* core-links-json also is in the same cluster (WGLC before July 1st).
  Hannes would like to see the RFC7390 parts separated out from the
  RFC6690 part that we are about for RD.  The TODOs in the document
  need to be ticked off/trackerized.
* There will be a 2nd WGLC for core-http-mapping after the comments
  are incorporated (-10).
* core-interfaces may have been adopted too early and requires a major
  overhaul, separating out the more speculative material (some of
  which is T2TRG material).  It should be made very clear that this
  describes one way of using CoAP (which has indeed been picked up in
  various ways by other SDOs), not the prescribed way.  Matthias will
  help Michael to do the separation.
* The work on management of constrained devices has converged ("COMI
  with COOL").  The yang-cbor draft is ready for an adoption call, but
  not enough people had read it yet to do an in-room adoption check.
  The other drafts will undergo merger/restructuring work based on
  this week's discussions and should then become ready for adoption.
  This work is explicitly covered by our charter (which also calls out
  LWM2M management as a related approach that we will continue to
  support as needed), and we will implicate NETMOD/NETCONF into every
  step we are taking.  The author team invites the WG to its bi-weekly
  phone meetings (to be announced on core mailing list).
* The work on Object Security for COAP (OSCOAP) is progressing nicely.
  A complete draft can be expected for Berlin.

Grüße, Carsten

Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core