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

Dispatch Status Pages

Dispatch (Active WG)
Art Area: Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell | 2009-Apr-14 —  

IETF-100 dispatch minutes

Session 2017-11-13 0930-1200: Collyer - Audio stream - dispatch chatroom


minutes-100-dispatch-00 minutes

          Thank you to Magnus for Minutes.
          Noting the Note Well.
          Providing the deadlines for next meeting (IETF #101) Dispatch Meeting
          Zstd Compression
          Murray Kuckerawy presenting the intention with
          Marting Thomson: Content-Type don't know if there is a strong motivation
          for this.
          Harald Alvestrand: What is it useful for?
          The same thing that gzip and roth. Zstd used with Linux kernel. Better
          performance than GZIP
          What is the IPR situation? In compliance with BCP 79.
          Alexey: Content-Transfer encoding registration. It is very hard to add
          these unless very special cases.
          Martin Thomson: Don't worry about transfer-encoding. They will not deploy.
          Alexey: Considering to AD sponsor this document.
          ART AD Report
          ART Directorate has been tried out, but there are not yet that many on
          it. Have been useful. Asking for volunteers.
          New WG: DNS over HTTP (DOH) and  EXTRA
          IM with S/MIME
          Ben Campbell presenting.
          Mary: Noting that we done mini WGs also for fairly small issues, and a
          WG would attract more attention from the security people.
          Sean Leonard: In general this should move forward. In the context of IETF
          messaging it should specify which version of S/MIME it uses, probably 4.
          Martin Thomson: Is this for point to point. Or is multi-party also? Ben
          do you mean multiparty with exploder. Martin group keying is a challenging
          if you want to prevent the exploder from reading the message.
          Jon Peterson, why using S/MIME. There has been multiple previous
          attempts. Why implement S/MIME in SIP messaging
          Ben: There are already S/MIME in a lot of related context. Thus, code
          exist and S/MIME likely require less new code in clients.
          Christer Holmberg: In CPIM, the headers can't be encrypted as they
          are used in Store and Forward cases. Can the solution be used peer to
          peer? Ben: There are no technical reasons. But likely practically reasons
          with key-management. The draft doesn't tackle this problem at all.
          Andrew Allen: Two years ago there where hardly no support for S/MIME
          at SIPIT.
          Ben: There are enough interested parties that it worth doing, even if
          there are solutions for other groups.
          Martin Dolly: The US wireless community is requesting this.
          Chairs: Who thinks it is a problem worth solving?
          A number of hands (approximate ?)
          Martin: When you ask that question you asking who wants a unicorn. The
          right question are there enough push behind this to get this done?
          Stephen Farrell: What implementation does exist in this context? Ben
          there are email implementations. If they are suitable doesn't know.
          Jon Peterson: Not that interested if this is only S/MIME. If we are doing
          work on secure messaging, that would be more interesting as S/MIME may
          not be the right solution.
          Jim Fenton: The problem of getting secure message to the users do
          exist. However, If we are doing secure messaging we should take a step
          back to figure out the best way. One problem is the lack of confirmation
          of reception.
          Jon Peterson: If the Cert management does come in again. That would be
          more interesting and I likely engage.
          Christer Holmberg: It is very useful to clarify the protocol. As S/MIME
          is an allowed in the SIP messaging RFC if there a question it should
          Sean Leonard: ?
          Chairs: Who are willing to work with Ben on S/MIME: 4 persons. More
          interest in the general topic of secure messaging.
          Looking at Internationalization .. Again
          John Klensin presenting.
          Pete Resnick: Leaving the problem to some else. Has normally not
          worked. Is there a possibility to do joint work with Unicode Consortium
          so that both comes to consensus. IETF has to little expertise to be
          really productivity and no forcing function.
          Leslie Daigle: Don't see a way of getting Unicode consortium to do
          things.  Still need
          John there are two different territory, and we would be crazy to take
          on theirs. However, there has been some
          Barry Leiba: We need guidance for protocol developers what they need to
          think about on internationalization.
          Yoshiro Yoneya: Encourage to work with other SDOs on this.
          Andrew Sullivan: Discussion hasn't gone into the buckets in John's
          slides. Don't know if trying harder on collaborating will work. The
          problem, is that this is user interface problem. We usually don't think
          we have those problem. User interface people would laugh if we asked
          for a general cook book for these problems.
          Ted Hardie: IRIs was the presentation format, that had a mapping to URIs
          (Identifier). That didn't work. Part of the problem is that Unicode
          Consortium, assumes that you have a local context, that you know the
          script and local language. This we don't normally have that context. If
          we are going tackle this problem space, we really need to think about
          what we are going to change to make this work.
          Pete Resnick: Not suggesting that try to work hard on getting
          together. The problem, is that we try to do this very formally, with
          something like liaison statement. But there are personalities involved. We
          need to engage more directly, and work in the both sides organization
          according to each rules.
          Leslie: We are not ready. We don't yet know what we want to do. We
          should remove Unicode Consortium from the table and take a step back
          what we really need to do on architecture. What do we need to change to
          accommodate the needs that exist.
          Joe Hildebrand: We have lets constraints block some some possibilities
          such as backwards compatibility. ...  There is one way that would be
          horrible in the near term, but may be better in 20 years.
          John Klensin: A special review team is for dealing with the patching
          issues, not working on grand architecture. In response to Joe there are
          backwards compatibilities that have to be handled somehow as this is
          part what caused the problems.
          Joe Hildebrand: That we don't necessarily constrain the solution space,
          based on historical issues with personalities.
          Pete Resnick: A concern that if we start go down the path without Unicode
          Consortium people involvement. We need to figure out how to
          Chairs: Where do we take this discussion?
          Barry: The drafts should be discussed in ART list. The long term
          discussion is likely not suitable on ART list. WG is also likely to
          contain quite some overhead.
          Adam (as AD): Drafts on ART list is reasonable. For the long term things,
          we ADs like to think more about next step.
          Leslie: An IAB workshop would be a possibility.

Generated from PyHt script /wg/dispatch/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -