Subject: Draft minutes from IETF 58

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:52:16 -0500

Folks,

attached the *draft* minutes from our meeting at IETF 58. Thanks to 
Eric for taking the minutes, and thanks to Marshall for taking care of 
the Jabber.

In case you've comments, please provide them by Friday, 11/14, 5pm 
(EDT), so that we can forward the minutes to the IETF in a timely manner.

Thanks,
   Markus

Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES)

58th IETF Meeting

11 November 2003

Eric Burger, scribe

Jabber log is at

<http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/[email-masked]/2003-11-11.html>

=====

Agenda Bashing: Markus Hofmann

=====

Document Status - See slides & ID Tracker

Goal: finish documents in  "ID Exists" status by end of November

=====

OPES Treatment of IAB Considerations

draft-ietf-opes-iab-03 - Abbie Barbir

See slides

On Considerations 3.1 & 3.2: chose to make notifications optional; focus on tracing.

Clearly, OPES cannot do end-to-end encryption.  OPES can do hop-by-hop encryption.

Sally Floyd: Likes document; addresses IAB issues

Markus: expect WGLC soon after IETF

=====

OPES process and end points communications

Draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05 - Abbie Barbir

See slides

Tracing

-------

Open issue: What is OPES Tracing? Current wording has problem with "inclusion".  Does that mean that trace can be adapted (pruned, modified, added-to)?

Should we allow trace adaptation?

Trace information designed for system administrators, not users.

Bypass

------

IAB Considerations said to bypass non-OPES content.  But, what is OPES content?  Solution: punt -- definition of OPES content is outside scope of OPES.

Sally Floyd: Comment: IAB document isn't legal language. Try to figure out what the intent is. The IAB document does not mean "user has to have a way to bypass firewalls, boundaries, etc."  It is saying, "If a user asks for content from web server, and the content gets mangled by an OPES server, then user needs to be able to figure out what went wrong."

MUST/SHOULD/MAY questions: see slides

w.r.t. OPES bypass - Sally Floyd: Source of IAB concern about non-OPES is data integrity, e.g., how does one detect malicious transformation of data.

=====

OPC: OPES Callout Protocol

draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core-03 - Abbie Barbir

see slides

Should authentication be in the core or binding (HTTP)?

Should authentication be in this draft, or a separate draft?

Same issues for Encryption.

Should we get IETF review before going to WGLC?  Marshall: "NO"

Application message identifiers are irrelevant for HTTP, but might not be robust enough for SMTP.  Should we dump them and figure out the right thing for SMTP later, if there is a later?

Markus: Please post comments on AM-ID's to the list!

=====

HTTP Adaptation with OPES

Draft-ietf-opes-http-01 (from Martin and Alex) presented by Markus

See slides

Targeting WGLC for end of November

Need HTTP expert to review HTTP-specific issues, and in particular on HTTP-specific security considerations

Open issues: How to avoid blocking; skip uninteresting request bodies in 'response mode'; and handle HTTP-specific things like 100 Continue and 206 Partial Content?

Please check for XXX's in document and send text to mail list!

=====

P: Message Processing Language

Presented by Markus

See slides

Open issues:

What information is available to interpreter? Complete message? Headers only? Punt?

Is doing HTTP module in scope for work group?   If so, in what document?

Should work group define interfaces between P interpreters and module suppliers or callout services?  If so, how do services return results, e.g., from OCP?

Ted Hardie: Working group should specify what information is available to the interpreter.  Not a value judgement of where, just we should set expectations for community.

Ted Hardie: When do we expect the current charter items to be done?

Markus: Hopefully December.

=====

OPES Future

Markus

Note: Re-chartering is ONLY for adding new work items, not for staying alive to do work from old charter.  Keep new work in OPES framework, not something new.

Really need to know who will be committed to working on new work items.

PLEASE POST THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS TO MAIL LIST.  PLEASE VOLUNTEER TO DO WORK!!!

OPES for SMTP and IMAP: does it conflict with lemonade?

Eric Burger: Not at all.  Definitely fits into OPES, just need to coordinate groups.

If you have interest in a topic, want to be an editor or contributor, please post to list.

Marshall: Importance of finishing documents -- "credibility is the coin of the realm."

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:51:22 -0700 (MST)

Thanks for the minutes and Jabber!

How many people, approximately, attended the meeting?

Also, Jabber log says:
	- Marshall asks who's an old-timer
	- Lots of applause all around

Was the question about people who were WG participants from early OPES
days? What caused the round of applause? Lack of old-timers?

Thank you,

Alex.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Eric for taking the minutes, and thanks to Marshall for taking care
> of the Jabber.
>

---

From: "Markus Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:10:47 -0500

Alex,

> How many people, approximately, attended the meeting?

There were about 20 people in the room.
 
> days? What caused the round of applause? Lack of old-timers?

Marshall asked who participated in the 1st BOF, the 2nd,... the 1st WG
meeting, the 2nd...

If I recall correctly, the applause was triggered by a statement from
Marshall in which he emphasized that the WG made tremendeous progress in
being so close to meeting all charter items.

-Markus

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:15:40 -0700 (MST)

> Marshall asked who participated in the 1st BOF, the 2nd,... the 1st WG

What was the breakdown, very approximately?

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:08:52 -0500

> What was the breakdown, very approximately?

Someone correct me if I recall wrongly, but I'd say about half was at 
the first BOF, and the number got little smaller the higher the BOF/WG 
meeting number.

-Markus

---

From: Geetha Manjunath <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:27:16 +0530

> PLEASE POST THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS TO MAIL LIST.  PLEASE VOLUNTEER TO DO WORK!!!

I am willing to volunteer some of my time for the rule language related
work - review, authoring/editing,whatever is needed...   Specifically,
on the following work items:

1. Enhancements to 'P language' (if it is decided to have a few)

2. Work that Alex called as "P modules and interfaces"
 - HTTP protocol specific module work
 - Defining a specification for the 'P' runtime engine - so that people
can claim 'conformant P runtime'.
 - [Java,C++,Python] Language binding for authoring modules.

3. Investigate whether there are any existing Policy frameworks that
help articulate authorization aspects related to ruleset authorship
versus content ownership versus hop ownership versus service ownership. 

4. Investigate what is needed to enable more standard global deployment
of 'P'. Some of the possibilities here are:
  - Mode by which a client can query the available filtering services.
This can be used by the client to authorize a few of them to always
execute on his messages. Can we do this with OPTIONS like feature of the
OCP client by propagating it to the end-user? Else Can we define a
subset of OCP core protocol itself to be supported between 2 OPES
entities?
  - Will an alternate representation for 'P' help in speeding up
things?  Is it useful to have a pre-parsed intermediate representation
of 'P'? Does a virtual machine model be useful here?

5. Investigate whether 'filtering service' can be made as a 'first class
service' that can be requested by the client? If so, what is the mode by
which a client can request 'P' processing (message embedded?) Is is
useful to have a way by which the user can request for a specific filter
to be applied for specific HTTP requests? Alternatively, is it useful to
allow clients to query for the location of a filter to later send in
their files to be adapted by the filter?  

BTW, I am not sure which of these can/cannot come under OPES charter...

Thanks and regards
Geetha

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:36:50 -0500

Hi,

since there were no further comments, these minutes are final now and 
have been forwarded to IETF secretariat.

-Markus

Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> attached the *draft* minutes from our meeting at IETF 58. Thanks to Eric 
> for taking the minutes, and thanks to Marshall for taking care of the 
> Jabber.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:50:30 -0500

Geetha,

> [...]

Thanks much for your suggestions and your email indicating your 
willingness to contribute to possible future work items. Several good 
ideas - we'll discuss them in greater detail a little later when we've 
wrapped up the active documents and decide on possible re-charter.

Folks - anyone else interested in working on new work items? We've a 
nice collection of ideas so far, and three folks who expressed their 
willingness and ability to keep contributing.

Thanks,
   Markus