[straw] IETF#90: Draft STRAW minutes

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

(Co-chair)

Hi,

Below are the STRAW minutes that the chairs intend to upload.

However, before we do that, we would like to ask the community to take a look at least at the notes associated with the DTLS-SRTP presentation, as it caused lots of discussion.

Note that the minutes do not contain who-said-what information (that can be found elsewhere), but if you think there are some important things missing, or if you think something is wrong, please let the chairs now.

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer & Victor

-------------------


IETF 90 - STRAW

1150-1320 EDT    Friday Afternoon Session I





Topic:     Agenda bashing, IETF Note Well and WG status

Presenter: Christer Holmberg (co-chair)

Slides:       http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-0.pdf

Draft:     N/A





No issues were identified.







Topic:     Guidelines to support RTCP in B2BUAs

Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero

Slides:       http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-1.pdf

Draft:     draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp





It was indicated that XR needs to be looked into, to see whether something needs to be covered in the draft.



It was indicated that the terminology will be aligned with the grouping-taxonomy draft. In case there are conflicts, or other issues are found, the STRAW community is requested to provide comments on the grouping-taxonomy draft.



It was requested whether the draft should also cover RTP specific issues. It was indicated that the scope of the RTCP, and that we should be very careful about introducing RTP issues. It was recommended to talk to Colin Perkins whether he has any opinions regarding the need to cover RTP.



I was asked how the document will relate to the work on multisource optimisation taking place in AVTEXT.



It was indicated that the text recommending man in the middle functionality for SRTP most likely will cause issues with IESG. After the DTLS-SRTP discussion (see further down) it was suggested that the RTCP draft should not talk about SRTP.







Topic:     Taxonomy Discussion

Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero

Slides:       http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-2.pdf

Draft:     All STRAW deliveries





It was agreed the STRAW shall use the terms in the avtext-grouping-taxonomy document in preference to definitions elsewhere is they are appropriate, with a note indicating any differences in other documents that may influence understanding.







Topic:     STUN handling in B2BUAs

Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero (on behalf of the draft authors)

Slides:       http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-3.pdf

Draft:     draft-ram-straw-b2bua-stun





It was indicated that B2BUA, due to policy reasons, may strip candidates from SDP.



It was indicated that B2BUAs must be very careful to not perform actions that will cause ICE mismatch.



The chair informed the community that a WG adoption request will be sent out within the upcoming weeks.



It was indicated that the group needs to follow the ICE bis work taking place in MMUSIC, in case there will be any impacts on the STRAW draft.







Topic:     DTLS-SRTP handling in B2BUAs

Presenter: Lorenzo Miniero (on behalf of the draft authors)

Slides:       http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-straw-4.pdf

Draft:     draft-ram-straw-b2bua-dtls-srtp





The presentation triggered lots of discussions and controversy, as it was seen as an attempt to standardize MITM (man in the middle procedures). While people did realize such actions take place in deployments, they claimed that IETF/STRAW should not standardize such procedures. It was also indicated that it goes against a number of BCP specifications, and RFC 2804. Others indicated that the purpose is to make sure that entities doing this kind of functionality do it in a way which does not cause interoperability problems, which could cause people to not use security to begin with.



It was indicated that one possible way forward could be to simply document, in an informal delivery, how different vendors do things in the network, but in such case the vendors should also be listed in the document.



Before the draft is adopted as a WG item, further discussions need to take place. The ADs will help with finding the correct people (security, IESG, etc) to involve in such discussions. The chair indicated that the draft implements a charter delivery, but that one possible outcome will be to remove/re-scope the charter delivery.