[Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] IOAM Meeting Summary, January 6th, 2021

Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 07:41 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 09:40:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CABUE3XkxoTrbZwxxUXNpsWS+G=CU2TXa6A_nxyGbCJrnUgp+KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ippm-ioam-ix-dt@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm-ioam-ix-dt/VBVQ13-HLRLe8pDtx1tW9q09ifk>
Subject: [Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] IOAM Meeting Summary, January 6th, 2021
Precedence: list

IPPM IOAM Design Team
Virtual meeting
January 6th, 2021, 07:00 UTC
Webex meeting


Attendees:
Frank Brockners, Greg Mirsky, Haoyu Song, Tal Mizrahi.

Minutes by Tal Mizrahi.

Summary
=======
- Tal will work on a first draft of an IOAM integrity protection draft.
- Frank will look into the issue raised on the mailing list about the
IOAM Option Type field length and will respond on the mailing list.
- The next meeting will be on January 20th at 07:00 UTC.

Data Draft Discussion
=====================
Tal: we have had some comments from Shawn Emery on the mailing list
about the security considerations. A reference to the deployment draft
should cover the comments.
Frank: we will also need to add some more content to the deployment
draft to address Shawn's point.
Tal: from the data draft perspective we mainly need to add a reference.
Frank: right.
Tal: another issue is the integrity protection discussion we have had
in the past. The feedback from Martin Duke was that we will need to
start a 00 draft about integrity protection. I will start working on
this draft, starting from the threat model and requirements.
Frank: specifically integrity protection?
Tal: yes.
Greg: what is the relationship between the new draft and the data draft?
Tal: the data draft is going to have a reference to the new security draft.
Greg: normative or informative?
Tal: informative, since otherwise we will need to delay the data draft
until the new security draft is done and then publish them together.
Greg: the security solution needs to be a part of the data solution.
It needs to be normative.
Frank: the new draft is just a requirement document, so I do not see a
point for it to require a normative reference.
Greg: there has to be a solution that is an integral part of the trace
option solution.
Tal: no need to decide right now. We all agree that the first step is
a new integrity protection draft. Let's discuss the next step once we
reach that point.
Greg: I agree.
Tal: there are also the GEN ART review comments from Dan. Nothing major.
Frank: there was also a question on the mailing list from Xiao Min
regarding the IOAM Option Type field length.
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/0rwnqtOEF5ywtnp4fxCz9fcU7m0/)
Greg: it seems there is an inconsistency here: 8 bits but only 128
code points. It may be pretty simple. Although we may want to reserve
some values to experimentation.
Frank: I want to dig into the historic reason of why only the first
128 code points have been defined in the IANA registry.

[Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] IOAM Meeting Summary, January 6… Tal Mizrahi