►
From YouTube: IETF104-MILE-20190326-1120
Description
MILE meeting session at IETF104
2019/03/26 1120
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/proceedings/
B
A
A
Alright,
it's
time
we
will
go
ahead
and
get
started
good
morning.
Everyone.
This
is
the
mile
working
group,
so
hopefully
you're
all
here
to
listen
about
mile
next
slide.
Okay,
so
this
is
just
the
note.
Well
I'm,
not
gonna,
read
it
to
you.
This
is
just
to
make
sure
we're
following
processes
and
procedures
which
hopefully
you're
well
aware
of
next
slide.
A
C
Well,
I'll
need
to
ask
a
few
experts.
Yes,
yeah.
Well,
do
you
best
if
there
is
a
set
of
RFC
editor
notes,
the
difficult
part
you
know,
I,
actually
I
asked
Benjamin
yesterday
to
update,
and
he
said
yes,
half
of
my
issues
were
addressed.
Here's
the
remaining!
So
if
you
can
either
revise
the
draft
or
give
me
a
set
of
Archaea
tonneaus,
which
is
pretty
much
I
know
it's
I
I.
A
Because
he
was
the
last
discuss,
I
think
yes,
right,
cuz
been
cleared
it
yeah,
okay,
I'm
in
the
process
of
writing.
The
Shepherd
and
I
have
a
couple
comments
that
I've
been
talking
to
taki
about
on
the
JSON
IO
death,
so
he'll
provide
some
updates
on
that
and
then
Steven
you'll
talk
about
the
role
EC
cert,
which
we
did
adopt
as
a
working
group,
draft
I
believe,
and
so
we
just
need
to
get
our
milestones
updated
accordingly.
A
So
hopefully
we
should
have
ample
time,
and
maybe
let
you
guys
go
early
so
with
that-
want
to
thank
folks
for
volunteering
ahead
of
time
to
make
this
go
smoothly,
so
Thank
You
Steven
for
being
our
jabber
scribe
and
Dave
and
Chris.
For
being
our
note
takers,
are
you
guys
gonna
use,
etherpad,
perfect,
alright,
so
cocky?
Why
don't
I?
Let
you
do
the
status
and
then
because
I'm.
D
Already
told
you
we
have
only
three
one
left:
first,
one
takes
seem
to
be
great.
That's
already
in
a
you
see,
reduced
age,
the
second
one,
the
JSON
you
have
draft
working
group
last
call
was
ended,
but
after
the
secod
writing
I
had
to
review
and
revise
it.
And
finally,
we
have
to
discuss
on
the
timeline
for
the
roadie
draft.
So
currently,
this
is
a
note
from
the
previous
meeting
in
the
previous
meeting
we
said
we
will
be
about
working
up
last
call
by
April
2009
teen,
that's
coming
pretty
soon.
A
A
A
Punishment
for
standing
here
is
this
is
running
cold,
air,
okay,
yeah,
so
I
think
I
only
did
two
two
slides
anyway,
so
next
slide.
Okay,
so
in
the
any
IETF
call,
we
received
quite
a
few
comments
and
one
individual
comment:
most
of
them
were
good.
There
were
two
or
three
discusses
so
thanking
my
co-author,
Peter
and
I.
A
How
does-
and
this
was
eric
ries
colas
comment
of
how
do
I
know
what
the
data
model
is
and
then
and
it's
the
well
that's
just
the
nature
of
how
XMPP
works
and
he
seemed
fine
I.
Think
we
added
one
clarifying
clause
in
in
the
draft
for
that
I
think
the
biggest
one
that
I
wanted
to
discuss
in
the
group
was
the
notion
of.
Is
this
a
standards
versus
informational
because
we
didn't
do
a
formal
consensus
and
I
should
look
for
the
chair
for
that.
So
we
wrote
stronger
language
I.
A
Think
in
the
introduction
that
I
could
calling
it
a
mapping
and
Peter
said
well
Nancy,
it's
the
applicability
draft,
it's
an
applicability
statement
which
I
wasn't,
which
is
a
proposed,
makes
it
a
proposed
standard.
So
we
changed
the
language
in
the
introduction
to
say
this
is
really
not
really.
This
is
an
applicability
statement
for
how
you
use
XMPP
to
carry
security
information,
so
the
proposal
is
still
to
leave
it
as
a
standards
but
Alexi.
A
C
Alexi
I
think
it's
obviously
sort
of
a
H
case
here,
because
if
you
have
a
strong
feeling
as
editor
and
as
the
working
group
one
way
or
the
other
then
yeah,
it
probably
can
be
accommodated.
Okay,
if
you're
flexible
like,
if
is
G
was
more,
you
know
saying
no.
This
is
really
informational
and
you
don't
mind
then
it's
just
easier
to
change
it
to
informational,
yeah.
A
F
Steven
bang
hard
at
the
mic,
so
it
was
like
to
IETF
segoe.
That
I
gave
the
commentary
that
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
normative
language
and
I've.
Read
it
again,
and
it's
a
lot
better
now
so
I
think,
just
from
my
perspective,
I'm
kind
of
in
the
flexible
camp
as
well
I
think
it's
at
the
point
now,
where
I
personally
would
not
oppose
it.
Being
standards.
C
Sir
and
now
I'm
being
devil's
advocate
just
not
as
their
area
director
again
because
you
actually
described,
we
put
requirements
on
pieces
that
needs
to
be
implemented.
It's
not
just
pure
xmpp
right.
You
require
a
set
of
extensions
right
which
a
normative
right
that
makes
it
like.
You
know
more
more
right.
C
G
C
It's
a
and
it's
not
for
me
to
say
it's
absolutely
fine
with
it.
Well
utilizing.
The
draft
is
the
best.
If
you
don't
have
time
set
for
its
editors
notes,
will
do
the
only
my
question.
I,
don't
know
the
answer
is,
will
Benjamin
have
enough?
Will
he
be
happy
with
you
know
either
trusting
me
to
deal
with
the
rest
or
just
say
you
know
interview
it
before:
okay,.
A
So
admittedly,
I'm
carrying
three
groups-
two
of
them
are
today
I,
have
one
more
on
Thursday
I
may
have
some
time.
I
haven't
even
had
a
time
to
closely
read
Benjy
email
cuz.
It
was
a
bit
long.
I
know
he
provided
some
suggests
the
text
in
the
beginning,
but
there
was
a
long
prose
further
down.
That's
why
I
say
I,
don't
know
if
I
can
get
everything
done
today,
but
I
can
try.
C
C
C
A
C
C
H
B
C
C
E
D
Let
me
talk
about
update
of
the
draft
on
the
c
ball
bindings
of
our
death,
so
only
two
straights
why
the
status
update
work
english
by
working
with
google
fall
but
conducted
against
the
return
version,
and
it's
completed
and
no
objection
or
no
comment.
What
Freud
provided
actually
so,
but
according
to
is
an
ANSI.
We
still
have
to
modify
draft,
especially
for
the
IELTS
section,
for
this
I
want
to
discuss
a
bit
in
the
next
slides,
but
we
really
need
iron,
a
section
or
not.
For
this
draft,
and
also
one
update
is
a
converter.
D
In
the
previous
meeting.
We
are
discussing
the
converter
as
a
forum,
good
implementation
and
that's
already
updated
to
the
github.
You
can
access
it
if
you
want,
and
the
last
one
is
a
router
of
roc
17
1970
little
bit
enormous,
maybe
we
want
to
have
in
version
is
possible
as
any
way
to
make
a
green
version
of
rfcs
29.
Incidentally,
if
she
is
I
hope
reach
a
modified
text.
What
I've
seen
up
29:20
think
we
have
modern
thing
Arata.
So
it's
easy.
It's
not
so
easy
for
asking
review
on
the
Jason
draft.
D
G
I
G
D
J
A
A
A
G
G
G
G
D
So
let
me
just
talk
about
INR
section.
This
is
only
issue.
I
want
to
get
some
guidance
from
you
guys
so
I'm
just
wondering
with
a
we
do
that
I
am
at
section
or
not.
The
current
draft
has
a
CD
DL
data
model
in
the
draft.
It's
already
embedded
in
the
draft
so
and
also
see
Bob
ionic
draft
is
currently
not
defined
any
new
value,
because
this
Sybil
electrically
just
mapped
in
binding
to
the
our
system
of
three
1970
1970.
D
So
we
may
not
need
to
host
a
young
section
at
all,
but
sometimes
people
want
to
have
a
civil
data
model
as
a
complete
file
for
this
purpose.
Maybe
we
can
resistor
CJD
a
model,
and
I
anniversary-
or
we
do
not
include,
could
we
do
not
use
IANA?
We
have
too
often
I
wonder
what
which
way
would
be
the
best
way
for
us.
Do
we
need
to
register
the
data
model
as
a
separate
file
in
a
Jana,
or
do
we
not
have
to
register
the
data
model
in
the
ena?
A
Divert
the
namespace
is
registered
right,
so
here
the
clarification
and
and
part
of
it
is
ignorance
on
the
chairs.
Part
is
I'm
still
trying
to
read
the
CDL
and
the
Seaboard
draft,
which
has
gone
to
publication
now
right.
So
the
way
I
read
that
it's
really
more
of
a
structure,
so
I
think
of
it
more
as
an
information
model
and
so
using
CV
DL
with
JSON
instantiate,
the
I/o
def
namespace
into
a
data
model.
So
from
that
perspective,
I,
don't
believe
you
need
an
ion
of
registry
in
looking
at.
A
So
the
only
other
example
that
I
saw
was
the
concise
wit
draft,
which
does
have
registries
of
fields
and
tags
that
may
be
extensible
like
types
and
versioning,
and
so
that's
where
I
was
suggesting
tataki
to
the
authors
right.
If
there's
a
notion
of
wanting
to
build
extensibility,
do
you
then
want
to
create
an
Dianna
registry
in
the
C
DDLJ
son
right,
so
that
then,
when
you
want
to
rev
ioad
F?
If
you
want
to
create
new
structures,
you
can
do
that
and
then
register
them
through
they
I
in
a
process.
I
would.
K
D
A
H
Walton
ire,
so
the
example
you
gave
was
with
Co
swig
mm-hmm.
So
what
we're
doing
with
cursed
with
is
in
the
ISO
document
we're
working
on
an
update
there,
we're
gonna
point
to
the
IETF
or
to
the
IANA
registries,
so
that
whenever
the
Ayana
registry
gets
updated,
both
the
XML
version
and
the
and
the
Seaboard
version
will
be
able
to
effectively
stay
in
sync
with
the
two,
so
I
think
we
were
suggesting
doing
it
in
a
way
that
both
the
XML
and
the
JSON
version
could
could
benefit
from
that.
H
F
H
We
have
we
have
some
valid
values,
lists
that
are
used.
You
know
for
things
like
entity,
roles
and
version
schemes,
and
things
like
that
which
are
similar
to
the
control
vocabularies
that
exist
in
I,
so
we're
using
an
I
in
a
registry
so
that
new
ones
can
be
added
through
extension
and
at
some
point
down
the
road
that
those
values
and
then
be
picked
up
by
the
corresponding.
C
F
What
I'm
hearing
from
used
that
you're
really
asking
this
last
line
an
option
to
a
separate
seat?
Video
model
file
improves
its
usability.
So
to
me
it
sounds
like
what
you're
asking
is
about
having
somewhere
to
have
the
entire
CD
DL
file
available
for
download
and
you're
thinking.
Maybe
you
could
put
that
entire
CD
VL
file
on
an
Diana
Registry
somewhere,
so
I
think
that
I
think
we're
talking
about
some
different
things,
but
I.
K
A
F
So
I'm
just
gonna
answer
just
this
last
question
on
your
slide
here,
referring
to
the
actual
file
itself,
I'm
going
to
say
no
option,
I'm
going
to
say
option,
one
I
probably
wouldn't
upload
the
full
CD
DL
file
on
an
eye
on
a
registry.
It's
more
common
to
find
the
full
schema
for
formats
like
this,
just
in
the
appendix
of
a
document,
and
then
what's
pretty
common
to
find
is
that
that
ends
up
uploaded
a
lot
of
different
places
anyway
on
the
internet
and
it's
so
you
don't
really
have
to
worry
about
it.
So
I'm.
F
Okay,
this
is
Steven
Bankart
up
at
the
front
Mike.
Now
my
presentations
tend
to
go
over
time,
so
I'm
gonna
go
really
fast.
This
time,
I
just
uploaded
the
Roli
c-cert
draft
again
with
no
changes
just
to
get
it
updated
because
it
had
expired.
There's
one
last
thing:
I
would
like
to
change,
which
is
to
update
the
format
usage
section,
because
we
found
a
new
way
of
organizing
that
section
when
we
did
some
work
of
the
software
descriptor
and
I
think
that
using
that
same
format
in
this
document
would
make
it
much
more
readable.
F
We're
at
a
point
now,
where
I'd
like
to
bring
this
conversation
to
the
group
and
pick
one
of
the
options,
there's
a
really
short
list
of
pros
for
each
one.
So
this
should
be
a
pretty
simple
discussion.
There's
not
a
lot
to
explain
here:
option
a
is.
We
last
call
the
document
as
it
is
after
I
make
that
one
final
update.
The
benefit
here
in
my
mind,
is
that
we
can
get
this
published
sooner.
We
can
get
it
done
and
it's
it's
out
there
and
ready
to
use
next
slide.
Please
option
B!
F
F
G
G
G
Should
this
other
one
be
done,
since
it's
actually
has
adoption
and
it's
been
being
used
within
Europe
I
think
Miriam
brought
it
up
in
her
TF
cert
report,
and
so
it
goes
back
to
what
do.
People
actually
exchange
and
I
think
it
was
more
focused
on
indicators
of
compromise
than
more
fuller
events,
okay,
which
is
done
by
both
hi.
Oh
that's,
Jeff
and
sticks.
So
yes,.
L
I
F
So
to
answer
the
first
question
of,
can
we
do
it?
I
would
say
absolutely
the
two
information
types
that
we're
talking
about
in
this
draft
is
both
indicator
and
incident.
So
it
sounds
like
this
would
fit
more
into
the
indicator
of
compromise
category
and
it's
worth
looking
into
so
right
now
we
just
have
a
kind
of
list
where
we
say
here
we're
going
to
talk
about
sticks
here,
we're
going
to
talk
about
IO
death.
It
would
be
really
easy
to
add
into
this
document.
Let's
talk
about
this
thing.
F
H
Table
tomorrow
we
took
a
note
format
is
that
we
can
always
just
do
updates
to
the
draft.
At
some
point,
add
the
additional
data
format
in
the
option.
D
could
be
published
this
now
and
then,
if
there's
interest
in
adding
this
additional
format,
we
could
we
could
do
a
short
update.
I
mean
it
would
be
like
a
three-page
draft.
G
F
Yeah
and
that's
that's-
that's
something
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
if
I
could
get.
You
know
minimally
a
couple
hours
on
the
phone,
maybe
twice
with
somebody
who
understands
this
format.
That
would
probably
be
enough
information
to
at
least
get
a
basic
level
support
for
that
format.
In
this
document.
Obviously,
the
more
cooperation
I
get
that
I'm
gonna
go
over
time
anyway.
This
is
what
happens.
Yeah.
F
It's
to
determine
how
you
use
Rowley
and
c-cert
.
io,
deaf
and
sticks
are
not
part
of
the
purpose
of
the
document.
They
just
happen
to
be
one
of
the
two
of
the
ways
that
you
would
use
see,
sir.
If
this
is
a
third
way
that
you
would
use
rolling
in
a
sea,
cert
I
think
it
falls
under
the
purview
of
the
document.
I'm.
L
B
H
B
F
Okay,
so
I
need
working
group
guidance
on
how
to
go
forward
with
this
I
heard
at
least
one
person
Cathleen
have
interest
in
adding
this
third
format
to
the
document.
I
I
would
say
that
I
have
interest
in
that
as
well,
but
I'd
really
like
to
ask
the
working
group
and
the
chairs
on
how
to
move
forward
with
this
document.
I
see
probably
a
B
and
C,
where
a
is
publish
it
now,
B
is
split
it
up
and
C
is,
let's
add
this
third
thing
and
then
publish
it
well,.
A
G
G
A
A
H
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
so,
let's
do
with
the
first
one.
Do
we
want
to
work?
Okay?
So
let
me
just
ask
it
once
and
I'll:
ask
it
this
way,
not
to
show
preference
there's
the
working
group
object
to
keeping
it
in
one
document.
F
A
F
A
F
F
B
L
H
A
Do
you
want
to
have
a
cutoff
date?
I
mean
I
was
just
gonna
say
you
need
to
know
that
by
the
end
of
this
week,
since
she's
here
right.
A
A
F
A
D
K
K
F
F
F
This
is
something
that
is
highly
relevant
work
for
us,
since
it
is
about
publishing
CVEs
as
well
as
the
there's,
a
draft
mister
81
38
on
something
called
the
vulnerability
description
ontology.
That
is
also
a
potential
way
of
describing
a
vulnerability.
So
these
are
things
that
we
care
about
and
we're
currently
working
on
figuring
out
how
they're
going
to
fit
into
roli
if
there's
other
vulnerability
formats.
Those
are
also
things
that
we're
looking
at
so
I
just
submitted
the
0-0
of
the
draft
that
talks
about
how
to
do
those
things
in
rolling
this
week.
F
My
question
to
the
group
to
the
chairs,
with
the
context
of
group
status
in
mind,
is
this
work
that
we
think
is
valuable
being
done
here,
I
mean
we're
implementing
this
I
suppose
we
could
do
it
as
an
experimental
I
suspect
that
there's
probably
some
other
people
that
care
about
it.
What
are
the
thoughts.
D
D
A
F
A
F
A
H
A
H
A
L
F
L
F
L
A
A
A
A
A
F
A
Okay,
so
turn
it
over
to
mile
and
then
Jess,
Kathleen
and
tacky.
Once
you
see
it
up
on
the
mile,
if
you
can
do
a
review,
then
I
can
do
a
last
call
after
they
review.
E
A
Okay,
so
that
gets
us
to
now.
We
need
to
review
the
milestones
right.
A
A
A
F
A
F
A
A
So
tacky,
if
you
can
ping
way,
we
at
least
have
a
second
with
Kathleen,
since
we
can't
remember
the
mic,
I
do
encourage
others
to
review
by
the
way
I
have
to
review
a
separate,
so
I
can't
count
myself.
A
What's
that
but
I
didn't
ask
for
volunteers,
because
we
did
it
on
the
mail
list
right.
He
was
ready.
So
okay,
then
I'm
the
vulnerability
draft.
We
have
the
three
volunteers
and
so
on
the
vulnerability
draft.