* 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.

Template for BOF Entry =

Timeframe IETF 100 (Singapore)

Current schedule of "Important Dates" requires that all BOF proposal requests be submitted to Area Directors (ADs) by 2359 UTC Friday, 2017-09-29. 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 2017-10-13.

Applications and Real-Time

General

IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0 (IASA20): Approved for IETF 100

Description:

The purpose of this non-WG-forming BOF is to continue discussions from IETF 98 and 99 and the iasa20@ietf.org mailing list regarding refactoring the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). The IASA 2.0 design team has been incorporating feedback from IETF 99 and further refining and expanding their document. Assuming that work gets shared with the community well in advance of IETF 100, the goal of this session will be to determine the sense of the community about the direction for IASA 2.0.

The responsible Area Director (AD): Alissa Cooper
BoF Chairs: Jon Peterson
Number of people expected to attend: 100
Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 2 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): mtgvenue, all of sec area, stir, modern, tram, sipbrandy
Mailing List: ​https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
Draft charter: n.a.
Relevant drafts:

Internet

Operations and Management

Common Operation and Management on network Slicing (COMS): Not approved for IETF 100

Description:

The dynamic provisioning of customized networking facilities (forwarding and routing, QoS, security, compute, storage capabilities among others) over physical infrastructures can rely upon the so-called network slicing technique. Network slicing is a technique to construct and manage a network slice, which is a collection of network resources and network functions. Customers of such networking facilities would like their service provider to construct network slices accordingly, regardless of the underlay technologies, while network operators have multiple candidate technologies for supporting the network slicing. Between the technology-agnostic service requirements and specific implementation technology, a common information model is missed. This information model could be mapped to any available implementation technology, and supports the operation and management on network slices.

Status: WG-Forming BoF
Responsible AD: Benoit Claise
BoF Chairs: TBD
Number of people expected to attend: 150
Length of session: 1.5 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): teas, anima, detnet, sfc, nvo3, opsarea

Mailing List: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices

Relevant drafts:

Agenda (draft)

  • Admin - 5 mins
  • Technical Requirement for a common Information Model of slice from Operators - 25 mins
  • A design for a common Information Model - 20 mins
  • Mapping the common Information Model to multiple technologies - 15 mins
  • Charter and Deliverables Discussions Q&A - 25 mins

Routing

IDentity Enabled Networks (IDEAS): Not approved for IETF 100

Description:

The goal of this group is to produce a framework that provides identity-based services that can be used by any identifier-location separation protocol. The framework will aim at a homogeneous behavior across use cases, and it will call out specific trade-offs that may be considered in the development of solutions. We refer to the framework providing the set of services as Generic Identity Services (GRIDS).

Status: WG-in-formation
Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana
BoF Chairs: Tim Wicinski, Padma Pillay-Esnault
Number of people expected to attend: 75
Length of session: 1.5 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs):
First Priority: bfd, dnsops, dprive, idr, hip, lisp, manet, netconf, netmod, nvo3, pim, rtgwg, roll, sidr, sfc, spring, tcpm
Second Priority: isis, i2rs, nmrg, ospf, panrg,

Mailing List: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
Charter: (in Review) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ideas/

Relevant drafts

Agenda (draft)

  • Agenda bash, scribe, minute taker [5min]
  • Problem Statement Intro [10 mins]
  • Use cases [15 mins]
  • Requirements for Grids [15 mins]
  • Framework [30 mins]

Data Center Routing (DCROUTING): Approved for IETF 100

Description:

Data Centers, because of their topologies (traditional and emerging), traffic patterns, need for fast restoration and low human intervention, among other things, are driving a set of routing solutions specific to them. Some of these solutions are incremental in nature, but others have resulted in new proposals. The requirements coming from the DC seem to thrive most likely towards several solutions – in this case, one size probably doesn’t fit all.

This BOF is a non-WG-Forming BOF. The intent of this BOF is to discuss the special circumstances that surround Routing in the DC (what is the problem?), and potential new solutions. The objective is *not* to hold a popularity contest and find a winning solution – but to determine whether there is interest and energy in the community to work on them.

The focus of this effort is on new potential solutions: ones that may require a standalone effort (WG) – It is not expected that work/discussions on related incremental enhancements in an existing WG to be delayed or deferred.

Status: non-WG-Forming
Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana
BoF Chairs: Gunter Van de Velde, Victor Kuarsingh
Number of people expected to attend: 200
Length of session: 2.5 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs):
First Priority: idr, isis, ospf, lisp, netmod, nvo3, pim, rtgwg, sidr, sfc, spring, tcpm, 17 November
Second Priority: i2rs, nmrg, lisp, netconf, roll, intarea

List address: dcrouting@ietf.org
Mailing List: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrouting
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=dcrouting
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrouting

Relevant drafts

Agenda (draft)

  • Agenda bash, scribe, minute taker [5min]
  • Problem Statement Intro [20 mins]
  • Solution Space Proposals [50 mins]
  • Summary [15 mins]

Security

Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT): Approved for IETF 100 (formerly Firmware Update (FUD))

Description:

Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the need for a secure firmware update mechanism that is also suitable for constrained devices. Security experts, researchers and regulators recommend that all IoT devices are equipped with such a mechanism. This work group, once formed, will develop an interoperable approach for securely updating IoT devices.

Status: WG Forming
Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty
BoF chairs: Russ Housley / David Waltermire
Number of people expected to attend: 100
Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 1.5 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): curdle ipwave stir ipsecme tls lamps mile sacm saag anima
Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant Internet-Drafts:

Agenda (draft)

  • Agenda bash, scribe, minute taker [5min]
  • Review of proposed charter text [10 mins]
  • Charter discussion [45 mins]
  • Discussion of work items and milestones [30 mins]

Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP): Approved for IETF 100

Description:

The goal of this group is to standardize protocol(s) for provisioning applications into trusted execution environments. The industry has been working on an application layer security protocol that enables the configuration of security credentials and software running in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE). Today, TEEs are, for example, found in home routers, set-top boxes, smart phones, tablets and wearables. However, most of these systems use proprietary protocols.
The goal of this BoF is to agree on a charter and set of milestones so as to formalize the creation of a TEEP working group. A strawman proposal of a provisioning protocol has been published in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pei-opentrustprotocol-04.

In the BOF we would like to do the following:
Agenda bash
-Problem Statement review
-Reach consensus on a Working Group charter
-Discuss and identify milestones
-Identify members interesting in working on proposals for standardization

Status: WG Forming
Responsible AD: Kathleen Moriarty
BoF proponents: Dapeng Liu (Alibaba: ​max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com), Hannes Tschofenig (ARM: ​Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com)
BoF chairs: Nancy Cam-Winget, David Thaler
Number of people expected to attend: 100
Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 1.5 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): ipwave, tls, ace, core, mile, sacm, saag, anima, dispatch, opsarea, opsawg, oauth
Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant Internet-Drafts,

Mailing List: ​https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=teep

Draft charter text:

Relevant drafts:

Use case and problem statement
-https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-opentrustprotocol-usecase-01

Potential solution:
​-https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pei-opentrustprotocol-04

Transport

IAB Sessions

Previous meeting BOFs

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)