* 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 103 (Bangkok)

Current schedule of "Important Dates" requires that all BOF proposal requests be submitted to Area Directors (ADs) by 2359 UTC Friday, 2018-09-21. 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 2018-09-28.

Applications and Real-Time

NONE

General

WGs Using GitHub

  • Long name: WGs Using GitHub
  • Abbreviation: WUGH
  • Description:

At IETF 98 there was a non-WG-forming WUGH BoF organized to discuss IETF-wide documentation about how to use GitHub effectively in WG processes. At that time, it seemed premature to try to achieve consensus around common practices for using GitHub within IETF WGs. Since then, more WGs and document authors have started using GitHub to facilitate IETF work in different ways. Some WGs and participants are interested interested in having their working groups use GitHub, but they are unfamiliar with how to get started or they are unclear about which conventions to follow.

This BOF is proposed for IETF 103 to foster community discussion about establishing administrative processes and usage conventions to allow WGs and authors to get started using GitHub for IETF work in a more uniform way. The point of the proposed discussion is to explore whether there might be rough consensus in the community about processes and conventions to make it easier for more people to start using GitHub for IETF work. It is explicitly not to change how existing WGs are already using GitHub.

The goal of the BOF is to determine whether there is enough support in the community to warrant more detailed discussions with the IETF Tools Team and the IETF Secretariat about functional requirements and process details to support integrating GitHub use into WG work. Some proposed conventions are described in draft-cooper-wugh-github-wg-configuration.

Removing offensive terminology in RFCs

  • Name: Removing offensive terminology in RFCs (ROT-RFC)
  • Description: This BOF is an opportunity to constructively build on hrpc@ and ietf@ mailing list discussion about the use of offensive terminology in RFCs such as "master/slave", "white/blacklist", "man-in-the-middle". While the debate continues on the mailing list, key voices in the debate would like to move the discussion forward by hearing from the community its reactions to concrete proposals for ensuring that offensive terminology *could be* removed from *future* technical documentation and protocol specifications to increase understanding by readers, implying no loss of meaning or rigor. The objectives are to 1) propose a general area informational draft, 2) constructively discuss the proposed draft, 3) define clear next steps, and roles, to progress work on the proposed draft.
  • Status: not WG Forming
  • Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper
  • BoF proponents and chairs: Mallory Knodel <mallory@article19.org>, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>
  • Number of people expected to attend: 25
  • Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 1 hour
  • Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): hrpc

Internet

NONE

Operations and Management

NONE

Routing

NONE

Security

Title: Handling IPsec configurations in large scale SD-WAN deployment with constrained resources - sdwan-sec
Description: This BOF is for discussing the risks associated with various simplification of IPsec protocol by utilizing SD-WAN central controller. The traditional IPsec scheme requires that in a fully meshed network, each device has to manage n2 key exchanges and (n-1) keys. As an example, in a 1,000-node network, 1,000,000 key exchanges are required to authenticate the devices, and each node is responsible for maintaining and managing 999 keys. In addition, when an edge node has multiple tenants attached, the edge node has to establish multiple tunnels for tenants. For example, for a network with N nodes, a node A has 5 tenants app attached to it, then the node A has to maintain 5*(N-1) number of keys if each tenant needs to communicate with all other nodes. Therefore, simplification facilitated by SD-WAN controller is needed for large scale deployment. However, it is necessary identify the associated risks, so that the industry can make the informed decision on risks that can be tolerated for their specific environment.
Status: not WG Forming
Responsible AD: Benjamin Kaduk or/and Eric Rescorla
BoF proponents: Paul Wouters, Yoav Nir, Frank Xia and Linda Dunbar
BoF chairs: TBD
Number of people expected to attend: 100
Length of session 1.5 hours):
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): ipsecme, i2nsf, idr, saag, dots, rtgwg, spring

Problem statement:
Because of the property of providing secure communication over any networks including Public Internet, IPsec is the protocol used by SD-WAN, which, according to ONUG (Open Network User Group), is to aggreg