* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Birds of a Feather Meetings (IETF Pre-WG Efforts)

This page provides one common place that lists "possible IETF pre-WG efforts", known as Birds of a Feather ("BoF") meetings. Anybody who proposes a BoF is strongly encouraged to register the BoF effort here at such time as appropriate; e.g., during steps 1 and 2 in RFC 5434. Also see https://www.ietf.org/wg/bof-procedures.html.

The IAB will also attempt to provide BoF Shepherds as described in their document on the subject only on request from the IESG. If you feel that your BoF would benefit from an IAB BoF Shepherd, please discuss this with your Area Director.

To allow the Secretariat to schedule a BoF slot if it is approved, each entry MUST include the following items:

  • Long name and abbreviation
  • Description, including whether the BoF is intended to form a WG or not
  • The responsible Area Director (AD)
  • BoF Chairs (or the ADs as placeholders)
  • Number of people expected to attend
  • Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours)
  • Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs)
  • Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant Internet-Drafts, etc.

To allow evaluation of your proposal, please include the following items:

  • Please list any protocols or practices that already exist in this space.
  • If any modifications to existing protocols or practices are required, please list them.
  • If any entirely new protocols or practices are required, please list them.
  • (Optional) Please list any open source projects implementing this work.

Template for BOF Entry - Please do not edit the BoF Example Page directly.

Timeframe IETF 104 (Prague)

Current schedule of "Important Dates" requires that all BOF proposal requests be submitted to Area Directors (ADs) by 2359 UTC Friday, 2019-02-08. The IAB and IESG will hold a joint teleconference to discuss the proposals. ADs will be expected to approve or disapprove the BOF request on that teleconference, ensuring that the Secretariat has all of the information to put the first draft of the agenda together on or before 2019-02-15.

Applications and Real-Time





Name: Predictable and Available Wireless (PAW)

Description: This is a follow-up to a successful bar-BoF in Bangkok at IETF 103, and activity on the PAW ML since. We will explore a WG-forming BoF in Montreal . The group would extend the work done at DetNet to improve routing and forwarding over the radio medium, and implement the concepts that are described at a high level in the 6tisch architecture; the group would also follow and complement for the IETF part the activity at IEEE Std. 802 on wireless TSN .

Status: Non WG Forming
Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan (Int Area}
BoF proponents: Pascal Thubert, Corinna Schmitt
BoF chairs: TBD
Number of people expected to attend: 80
Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 2 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): 6tisch LPWAN 6lo roll rift

Operations and Management

Name: Technology Deep Dive - Modern Router System Architecture (MRSA)

Description: This is being organized with the Edu Team. This will focus on how a modern router is architected, and how it differs from the mental model / traditional view of how a router works. Over time, as interface speeds have increased, and networking has become more complex, router architecture has had to evolve to keep up - a modern "core" router is no longer just a big fast computer -- this has important implications for protocol design, including things like load balancing, fragmentation, extension headers, exception processing, etc.
This will be somewhat similar to the MODERN ROUTER ARCHITECTURE FOR PROTOCOL DESIGNERS IEPG session.
This BoF is an experiment - depending on how the idea of Technology Deep Dives goes, we may do more on other topics.

Special time request: Wednesday.

Status: Non WG Forming
Responsible AD: Warren "Ace" Kumari (Ops Area}
BoF proponents: Edu Team, Ace Kumari, Spencer Dawkins
BoF chairs: Spencer, Edu Team
Number of people expected to attend: 150 ?
Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 2 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): Ops Area, TSV Area / TSVWG, PANRG, ICCRG, IRTF, <everything!>





Name: Collaborative Automated Course of Action Operations (CACAO) for Cyber Security

Description: Over the past 18 months, various industry groups and vendors have been working on a solution for collaborative courses of action, sometimes called security playbooks. This group published its first individual introduction draft back on 2018-09-12 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jordan-cacao-introduction/) to the datatracker and to the cacao@ietf.org mailing list. As many of the supporters of this work were not able to attend the IETF 103 meeting in Bangkok, the group decided to wait until IETF 104 (Prague 2019) to have a BOF to create a working group.

This BOF is proposed for IETF 104 and the goal will be to bring together additional individuals and organizations that are interested in working on CACAO and finalize the charter for this working group, and start formal work on this effort.

Courses of Action or Playbooks are traditionally documents that spell out step by step what an organization (typically a SOC) must or should do in the event of a certain type of cyber attack. Meaning, an attack against one of the following types of resources; network, server, endpoint, device, scada system, data, information, user, etc. While some playbooks may include tasks for physical security, physical security is out-of-scope for this work. The goal of CACAO is to enable collaborative Courses of Actions / Playbooks to be authored, enhanced, shared, and processed in machine relevant time so that a SOC can decrease the amount of time needed to prevent, mitigate, or remediate an attack.

CACAO will work on the definition and distribution of Courses of Action leveraging existing transport protocols where it makes sense to support the required work flows. One of the values of this work will be the rapid sharing of defined Courses of Action within ecosystems, ISAOs, and ISACs. This will also enable individuals that are more senior to share detailed Courses of Action.

Status: WG Forming
Responsible AD: Ben Kaduk, Eric Rescorla (Security ADs)
BoF proponents: Bret Jordan <bret_jordan@symantec.com>, Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>, Joyti Verma <


BoF chairs: TBD
Number of people expected to attend: 50
Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 2 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): Security Area



IAB Sessions


HotRFC Lightning Talks


Previous meeting BOFs

Timeframe IETF 103 (Bangkok)

Timeframe IETF 102 (Montreal)

Timeframe IETF 101 (London)

Timeframe IETF 100 (Singapore)

Timeframe IETF 99 (Prague)

Timeframe IETF 98 (Chicago)

Timeframe IETF 97 (Seoul)

Timeframe IETF 96 (Berlin)

Timeframe IETF 95 (Buenos Aires)

Timeframe IETF 94 (Yokohama)

Timeframe IETF 93 (Prague)

Timeframe IETF 92 (Dallas)

Timeframe IETF 91 (Honolulu)

Timeframe IETF 90 (Toronto)

Timeframe IETF 89 (London)

Timeframe IETF 88 (Vancouver)

Timeframe IETF 87 (Berlin)

Timeframe IETF 86 (Orlando)

Timeframe IETF 85 (Atlanta)

Timeframe IETF 84 (Vancouver)

Timeframe IETF 83 (Paris)

Timeframe IETF 82 (Taipei)

Timeframe IETF 81 (Quebec City)

Timeframe IETF 80 (Prague)

Timeframe IETF 79 (Beijing)

Timeframe IETF 78 (Maastricht)

Timeframe IETF 77 (Anaheim)

Timeframe IETF 76 (Hiroshima)

Timeframe IETF 75 (Stockholm)

Timeframe IETF 74 (San Francisco)

Timeframe IETF 73 (Minneapolis)

Timeframe IETF 72 (Dublin)

Timeframe IETF 71 (Philadelphia)

Timeframe IETF 70 (Vancouver)

Timeframe IETF 69 (Chicago)

Timeframe IETF 68 (Prague)

Timeframe IETF 67 (San Diego)

Timeframe IETF 66 (Montreal)

Timeframe IETF 65 (Dallas)