Internet Engineering Task Force 105, 22 Jul 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: IETF105-MILE-20190722-1810

Description

MILE meeting session at IETF105
2019/07/22 1810

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/proceedings/

A

A

Should we get started, okay,.

B

Good afternoon almost evening, if you wanna, this is the mile working group session. So if you are not expecting to talk about the managed consent like in exchange, you may want to switch rooms.

B

So hopefully everybody is familiar with the note. Well I'm trying to look at faces. Is anybody new to mile no good so just be cognizant of the ITF note well, rules for the agenda today, I think yeah. We have TBD so I'm going to go flip. These two slides so I want to thank Dave for taking notes on the ether pad anybody else.

B

Who's willing to help you're using the ether pad link that is in the IETF agenda, so feel free to click on that and you can see the the notes being taken, live the minutes and Thank You Mia for being our jabber scribe.

B

So for the agenda today we can go through hopefully rather quick on the miles status and then we'll have an update on the JSON io def draft, which I believe Alexi had a conflict today has gone through and the state has now changed, meaning the last call it's now going towards the iesg publication, comment, review and publication.

B

So I don't think we need to discuss on that other than to provide updates based on the feedback, because we had quite a few comments that one and then we'll get excuse me clarify.

C

The precise state of JSON I, you deaf I, just checked in the data tracker. It's actually in still an IETF last call until August. First, okay,.

B

Aleksey, okay, let me check in my email because I thought that was going to be an update, so maybe it didn't get updated, I think about it.

C

It can still get updated despite the fact that it's in last call, but it's it last call flight. Oh okay,.

B

Thank you for that clarification, mm-hmm, okay and then from there we'll have the updates on our two remaining outstanding drafts, the extensions basically to to Roley, and then we have a little bit of time left. So, if there's any other business, we can address those as well. So any other things that you guys want to add or modify on the agenda blue sheet. We have one blue sheet up here, so if anybody needs it, okay, so I've already thanked the volunteers with respect to the milestones.

B

I think we we need to talk to a Lexie, because if you look at the milestones dates and the actual mile website, we need to update those but from the actual work we did finally publish the XMPP grid. It's now our CAA 600, the JSON IO dev, has received quite a few comments.

B

During its last call, we need to confirm from the ad that it can move on, and then we have two remaining drafts that I'd like to ensure we have enough reviews so that we can put the last call and get the shepherding going towards publication.

B

Okay, so with that I think we already went through the the discussions of what happened in Prague and how we're proceeding now with respect to the vulnerability draft, I'm, not sure tacky I, think I saw comments from you from the vulnerability, but I'm not sure I saw comments from Jess or from Kathleen, okay, okay,.

D

B

You need to provide comments, it's just to make sure that we have some reviewers on the vulnerability draft.

B

Yeah and Chris just thank you. Chris.

A

E

B

I've got to go back and take take account yeah, so I was asking for at least three reviewers and the same thing on the see sort of extension. Draft I, honestly, don't remember seeing any feedback.

E

B

Your name is on there.

B

And that's: okay: I was bad at Nanjing people too. So um so, if you can tell me Stephen later, who all the reviewers, where I can go back and see and and then what I'd like to do at the end of the session is to take a notion of who's reviewed it and whether we believe we're ready for a last call for both drafts. Okay, all right! So with that, let me who's presenting.

B

Is it you yes, okay, so tacky is dissenting so.

F

This is just a brief update of SIBO Jason binding of AOF draft, so nothing that important has changed. Most of the comments were editorial. Basically, it's mapping between basic base. Are you deaf, XML, spec and JSON spec was discussed. Not so many was changed. Only a torial. You can see.

F

So, as you can see, working a blast coded completed and AD and RFC has already provided me some comments. He also provided me some opening comments regarding some editorial sound, like a language staff. So it's much better now by now, and we are currently in the process of the IETF last call secretarial already provided the review, but the quantities are nothing. This adjust the content.

F

They are the same like the basic spec, so there is no additional concern when we have a Jason binding, so Secretary was completed, which I didn't problem for the Jane heart review. He provided a bit more comments regarding its mapping between XML and JSON and actually I really already have replied and I. Don't see any big problem at all I'm, just hoping to receive some confirmation that the changes I made what's good from the standpoint, was a reviewer, but anyway, no major issue raised until now.

F

So hopefully we can publish the draft ASAP, that's about it. Thank you.

B

All the changes, so you you mean published: okay I did.

F

It, but only in the github you got to change it that so small I didn't think we had better publish to the next version or, if necessary, I can publish, as that you.

B

Need to so that Alexi and then we can check with Alexi to you.

G

F

B

That he can push that version. Okay,.

F

B

Okay is that it any questions on this one good progress, alright, so.

B

Which one did you want to do? First? Oh, it's all in one.

H

Hey I appreciate.

B

It you, you want the clicker. Thank you. Well, you need the clicker.

I

Very small pink box this time around. Alright thanks everyone for for coming to smile and come listen to all this, so I'm, going to give two presentations back-to-back here on the updates to the two Rolly extension drafts that are being worked on and mile the first one is now that Scrolls kind of weird, whatever we'll see if we can make it through the first one is going to be the vulnerability draft just got a new version of this posted go through. Some of the changes can you help me out here. Scrolling is, is very strange.

B

Put into full-screen does that help it.

I

Does thank you, okay, so just to go over the changes really quick, so everyone's up to date on what's been done to the vulnerability Draft. Some of the formatting has been updated in the vulnerability draft to more closely match the template that we've been building out for Roly extensions. It helps it a little bit more readable helps you follow the requirements a little bit more easily that doesn't include any normative changes and really the formatting wasn't that far off in the first place. So this is not a major overhaul.

I

This is just kind of bringing a couple sections in line and shifting the hierarchy around a little bit just to make it flow the same way, other ones, there's no, no major changes. As part of this we've removed the video from the volunteer, the vulnerability description ontology was determined to be too unstable. It's still in a draft format. That's an is publication, and so we've decided to remove that from this document and when the time comes, if the time comes, a separate document can be written for that format.

I

This is for the. There are two different formats for CVEs: that's used, there's an XML format as well as a JSON format. Those are the nvd XML and NVD JSON formats in order to make the differences between requirements more clear, I've split the text into two sections made it a little bit more readable and it flow a little bit better that doesn't change the requirements. The requirements are the same. The intent is the same.

I

The wording should just make it much more clear, okay, and that was the most recent version of vulnerability that was just posted new version of C cert was just posted and then another new version. After that to include Chris's changes.

I

The this was actually changed. It was made almost immediately after the last IETF, but I wanted to include it here. The /resource location requirement is reduced because the requirement is inherited from 8:30 to 2:00 and increasing the severity of that requirement was deemed not necessary and put an undue stress on on implementers.

I

The /resource already is fully compatible and fully interoperable with with Rowley and with this extension, and you don't need more requirements to make that the case so I see the I think that was the only normative change in the caesar document and then a lot of typos spelling errors and things were fixed as well.

I

The one major typo that was changed- and this was thanks to Chris's comment and I'm, forgetting exactly what it was because it was like hours ago that I made it and I did not. I did not update this PowerPoint hours ago, so I well.

B

These changes were made against the revision, the version that Chris review yeah.

J

Correct time right, yes,.

I

So these dis is all accurate. What I mean I'll send a note to list of that other change that was I'm.

H

I

I already sent a note to list about it, so it that's fine, okay, so I think that both of these documents are done and ready. I've received a lot of good review and I'll get an exact list of reviewers to you. Nancy I think you wanted some more and I think we can probably pin down a few more.

B

Just wanted to confirm right, we.

I

Can confirm that yeah.

B

So I'm actually fine doing well. We need to take consensus in the group, so a question for you on the vulnerability extensions where you had removing the video where all of those changes in response to comments you received the.

I

Removal of video was not in response to a comment that was response to the author. Well, just literally only me isn't it for vulnerability. Thinking that the and I was I was the one who thought it was appropriate to add in the first place and received some amount of you know vocal support that that could be a decent thing to add.

B

We'd be gay, then.

G

B

Was a right move, I'm just asking us to the changes that you made whether they were all due to comments I, remove.

I

Video because it was an unstable reference.

B

I

So yeah I think they're both ready. There is one issue outstanding for both documents, and this is actually in response to Chris's comments as well as talkie comment. Takis comments. They've both pointed out that there is normative language in the documents. They are specifications that are written to ensure interoperability between implementations, and that would imply that these should be standards track documents well.

B

They are extensions, they should be standard documents right.

I

So I don't think there would be any issue in changing that designator to standards as.

B

We move to last.

I

B

Before you move it to last call I think it would be good just make the change. But let me just ask in the group if there are any objections to seeing it change to standards track.

B

K

For it to move from from informational standards track, I think some care has to be taken to update some of the references in the in the document, because you like for CVE the references actually just to like www CBE might org what isn't yeah absolutely.

I

Split between normative and informative and the reference.

K

That's yeah, we'll.

B

Have to make sure the normative language is clear versus informative.

I

I think reviewers. So this is an opinion. I think reviewers have been effectively treating this document as a standards document, because there's a lot of normative language in it. I think that's how it was understood, but we could ask for more review. Yes,.

K

Having only a handful of hours ago, I would say that it does well with with actually being formatted more like a standards document than an informational document. So going over the the references I'm concerned about that kind of Jeannie. Okay,.

B

So I think I'm, okay and saying just convert. Let me know when you've done that and I can put a working group last call okay before we put it out. Yes, every state yep.

I

Sounds like a plan to me: okay, all right thanks. Everyone.

B

I

I tend to go over on these things, but I really kind of got it short this time, I'm not bad.

B

Okay, so I'm kind of hopeful and optimistic here, especially since everybody's got their eyes on their laptops.

B

So how many people have read the drafts.

B

Nice, nice try, okay, how many people have read the documents and only two three okay I, don't know if it's fair to ask if we believe they're ready for working group last call. So why don't you give me the updates I will post them and I will ask the question which I need to confirm? Actually I don't but I can ask to confirm whether we're ready or I could just based on the reviews. I could just start.

B

A working group last call yeah, okay, so in my optimistic form, if we can start the working group last call and we can get the reviewers and I promise the non-jew Kathleen, then.

B

Then perhaps we don't need to have a session in Singapore. Are there any objections or comments or to that.

I

So, as as the author of basically, the two last outstanding drafts, I think that sounds reasonable. I think that if we can get this last call going and and really get the review in there and then keep it moving that there's not really anything that we couldn't just do over lists and I think at the most, maybe a virtual interim. If we need one but I'm imagining we finish this up on lists. Well,.

B

That's what I'm, presuming and hoping, but that relies on responsiveness on the chairs and I miss much to blame as well as the author and the reviewers, so for the next version of the draft during I guess once we open it to the last call, it would be good so Dave you said you could review Chris, you could review Kathleen, you could review so I! Think and I'm presuming you can do both drafts. I mean talking. You and I need to review them. So that's a given.

L

Table tomorrow, just to be clear from the notes you're suggesting we do those reviews as part of the last call or yes, okay, yeah.

B

That way, I can actually you or taki, whoever Shepherds in to say it's gone through. We've addressed comments and go through the full process, goodness I think are there any orders of business going once going twice: okay, I give you guys back 28 minutes, plus a little bit more or like 38 minutes. Thank you everyone. This has been good, I'm hopeful.

B

Unless we receive a lot of comments right.

B

Yeah well right at that pays we would have to do that. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Everyone.

H

B

Was in offer Brett first mile down that we could take some of the cacao work here. Okay,.

M

B

Hey I might return this.

B

But you know taka was asking and he said if Brent wanted to bring stuff that could pertain to mine, because some of the capacitor is we could be chartered and keep mild going.

M

N

Can't see up there.

N

She worried the other hearing about how I use my.

M

Right hands this.

N

One did, was they optimized minute.