►
From YouTube: IOT Directorate Interim Meeting, 2020-10-30
Description
IOT Directorate Interim Meeting, 2020-10-30
A
A
That
would
be
great,
but
first
we
will
go
quickly
with
the
update
and
before
then,
since
eric
when
k
our
responsible
eddie
is
also
on
the
call.
I
just
would
like
to
say
to
eric.
If
you
have
any
anything
that
you
would
like
to
say
to
this
group
for
the
pre-meeting
it
might
be,
it
might
be
good
to
share
right
now.
B
D
D
E
C
F
Yes,
so
carla's
here,
so
in
six
law.
Overall,
the
working
group
status
hasn't
changed
significantly
since
the
last
atf
most
working
group
documents
are
very
advanced
stages
and
still
progressing
and
there's
there
has
not
been
much
new
work.
So
in
more
details
there
are
five
documents
currently
in
the
rfc
editor
queue.
F
F
D
Careless,
if
I
may
say
the
the
four
documents
that
you
mentioned,
that
are
in
both
48
are
actually
out
of
of
48,
but
the
rfc
editor
has
asked
the
responsibilities
to
make
a
final
review
pass
to
ensure
that
the
changes
that
were
done
during
earth
48
are
okay,
so
f48
is
complete.
We
are
really
close
to
communication.
A
C
A
H
H
E
Hi
yeah,
so
we
will
our
officially
working
group
and
adasdf
is
officially
working
group.
We'll
have
our
first
official
virtual
intro
meeting
on
monday
at
1800
utc
we've
issued
an
adoption,
call
for
the
base
document
and
we
will
meet
at
ietf109
and
as
proposed
in
the
charter,
there's
an
approximately
kind
of
month
or
two
cadence
for
the
effort
between
revisions
of
the
document
and
writing
code.
K
Hi,
marco,
here
we
have
two
documents
in
isg
review
and
we
are
processing
their
comments.
This
is
the
resource
directory
and
stateless.
The
document
mentioned
before
by
pascal
and
michael
two
more
are
in
id
review,
also
processing
their
comments
and
we
have
the
four
core
conf
documents
under
shepard
write
up,
so
we
expect
to
request
for
publication
soon.
K
Group
will
score
also
past
working
group
plus
call
and
we'll
submit
sooner
version
addressed
in
the
comments.
We've
had
four
interims
since
itf
108,
mostly
to
address
those
isg
review
comments
and
on
advancing
other
documents
we'll
meet
at
idf
109
and
at
the
academy
we
plan
to
run
more
tests
for
group
of
score.
L
A
E
A
A
C
M
M
The
core
data
plane
drafts
are
at
the
rfc
editor
queue
like
if
you've
been
following
that
net.
One
update
recently
is
that
the
net
mprs
and
the
ipo
mpls
data
plane
drafts
just
got
into
the
rfc
editor
queue
and
the
last
core
data
plane
draft
the
mpls
over
udpip
is
is
getting
there
soon,
as
well
as
our
security
draft
and
the
flow
information
model.
M
M
M
M
Yeah,
so
I
I
guess,
I
would
suggest
to
start
to
open
up
the
use
cases
which,
which
includes
several
use
cases,
and
there
is
a
industrial,
iot
or
machine
too
much.
It's
called
machine
to
machine
there,
for
example.
So
so,
if
you
you
can
you
can
take
a
look
and
that's
the
good
start
on
taking
a
look
on
what
we
have
been
aiming
for.
M
M
M
B
M
B
A
N
Hi
this
is
malisha,
so
on
the
lakeside
we
will
be
meeting
during
monday
of
the
ietf
week.
We
have
a
two
hour
session
scheduled
since
the
last
itf
meeting.
We
did
not
have
major
changes.
Authors
were
busy
working
on
the
ad
hoc
issues
on
the
github
page
and
opening
some
of
the
issues
there,
but
we
did
not
see
much
discussion
on
the
list,
so
we
will
be
discussing
during
the
meeting
how
to
restart
these
discussions
on
the
list
during
the
meeting.
A
A
F
D
D
D
D
C
H
L
L
L
The
authors
have
updated
the
draft
so
we're
just
waiting
to
get
confirmation,
whether
all
those
comments
have
been
resolved
for
us
to
figure
out
if
we're
ready
for
for
publication
requests
the
eat
draft,
which
is
actually
the
first
draft
standard
draft
for
the
token
claims,
it's
still
progressing,
there's
still
a
lot
of
discussion
there
I'd
like
to
see
it
progress
faster,
but
it
is
what
it
is.
The
next
draft
is
the
tpm
based
yang
model
challenge
response
means
of
doing
attestation.
L
C
That
is,
an
rfc
editor
queue.
So
these
four
documents
are
now
very
active
and
we
hope
to
get
them
done.
Enrollment
facility.
We
have
a
recently
a
new
version,
so
we
are
working
reviews
and
shipper
documents
and
audp
ripple
is
a.
We
are
using
a
direct
revolution
and
we
are
hoping
to
fulfill
all
the
comments
from
the
80
from
the
authors,
capability
and
mobix
are
in
progress
and
in
the
extension
we
just
have
a
new
review,
addressing
the
comments
from
the
shepherd
and
we
have
to
report
80
and
as
well.
C
C
C
C
The
discussion
yeah
in
the
interim
things,
so
we
have,
I
started
the
github
control
and
we
are
collecting
the
peaks,
but
we
want
to
address
for
this
new
version
and
as
well.
We
have
to
review
the
6550
and
find
out
there's
a
future
work
or,
and
what
of
this
feature
work
we
can
address?
It
is
version
2
and
what's
going
to
be
the
things
that
are
going
to
make
obsolete
as
well,
but
of
course
we
have
to
review
the
interoperability
interoperability
scope.
I
want
to
look
at
in
this
new
version.
C
D
No,
we
just
that
there
are
a
number
of
interesting
functions
in
ripple.
V2
ripple
v1
was
mostly
the
distance
vector
the
standard.
You
know
distance
vector
protocol
like
an
igp
as
usual,
with
iodv
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
rod
projection,
on
the
other
hand,
we're
adding
for
the
first
one
a
reactive
operation
and
for
the
second
one,
an
sdn
operation.
A
Thank
you,
yeah.
You
partially
answered
my
question.
I
was,
I
was
going
to
ask
if
you
could
explain
the
differences
between
triple
v2
and
ripple
current
triple
version
one.
So
I
I
think
some
I
I'm
not
closely
following,
but
I
would
be
this
should
be
probably
then
this
should
benefit
probably
many
people
in
this
meeting
to
see
what
what
is
the.
C
This
is
the
thing
that
we
are
defining
now,
so
we
don't
have
a
specific.
We
just
have
separated
the
point,
but
at
some
point
would
be
nice
to
do
probably
some
tutorials
or
something
and
just
show
you,
which
is
the
difference.
So
we
can
get
feedback
on
what
you
think.
So
we
will
need,
like
I
think,
feedback
from
the
others.
E
D
Note
that
the
ripple
v1
was
made
made
for
a
green
field,
there
was
nothing
to
to
no
art
to
live
with,
but
now,
as
we
build
those
report
networks,
we
find
that
it's
hard
to
evolve
them
because
we
don't
have
functions
like
capability
negotiation
or
dynamic
activation
of
features.
So
it's
very
hard
to
add
anything
new
in
the
field.
As
the
protocol
stands,
it's
kind
of
fixed,
so
part
of
the
drives
that
we
have
now
and
we
want
to
integrate
in
ripple.
D
V2
are
capability
negotiations
and,
for
instance,
if
you
deploy
a
new
software,
it
takes
time.
So
you
want
the
software
to
be
deployed,
but
not
activated.
So
at
some
point
you
need
a
way
to
activate
that
new
feature.
So
we
want
to
add
these
sort
of
capabilities
which
were
not
existent
in
the
original
repo,
and
then
there
are
things
in
the
original
repo
that
nobody
ever
used,
that
we
want
to
kind
of
remove
as
we
remove
as
we
go
to
internet
stand.
C
Q
All
right,
there
are
three
working
group
documents
and
two
non-working
group
documents.
I'll
talk
about
the
top
one
is
the
architecture
pursuit
this
is
on.
The
iesg
telechat
for
next
week
should
be
considered
stable.
The
next
one
is
the
document
that
has
the
information
model
and
threat
model.
This
is
also
in
the
iesg.
It
already
went
through
ad
review,
which
raised
some
comments.
A
new
doc
was
posted
two
days
ago
and
at
that
point
the
ietf
working
group,
the
iutf
last
call
began,
and
so
this
is
currently
an
idf
last
call.
Q
Q
It
was
brand
new
right
before
108
and
there
was
some
discussion
about.
What's
the
right
to
the
home
for
it
and
at
108
we
decided
that
suit
would
probably
be
the
right
home,
and
so
we
expect
a
follow-up
discussion
on
that
one.
But
since
that
one
has
some
of
the
same
authors,
I
don't
know
if
this
is
going
to
be
updated
again
by
monday.
I
haven't
heard
so
I
don't
know
upon
us
if
you
know,
but
I
expect
this
and
we'll
continue
discussion
in
the
working
group.
Q
L
Okay,
I
I
haven't
been
tracking
all
the
emails
closely,
but
I
thought
I
saw
some
interruptions
anyway.
I
think
once
the
architecture
and
the
the
transport
ones
are
complete,
we
can
start
the
submission
request
for
publication,
for
both
the
architecture
and
and
the
transport
draft.
There's
been
activity
by
the
authors
and
dave,
I'm
assuming
the
cure
will
become
an
author
in
the
protocol
draft.
L
O
I
was
going
to
say
the
same
thing
that
that
is
already
said,
so
we've
pretty
much
focused
on
getting
the
the
collaboration
with
one
dm
safely
shipped
to
the
asdf
working
group,
which
is
now
spawner
spun
up.
So
at
iatf
109.
We
will
only
do
the
the
hackathon,
probably
also
with
sdf
related
work,
and
we
will
start
doing
a
broader
set
of
subjects.
We
have
many
drafts
so
that
we
should
be
looking
at
next.
For
instance,
the
the
whole
iot
edge
computing
discussion
and
we
will
do
that
after
ietf109.
A
O
Or
the
code,
it's
not
yet
as
concrete,
yet
so
right
now
there
is
a
document
that
that
describes
the
the
area
and
and
describes
some
some
structure
for
the
area,
and
we
want
to
finish
that
report
next.
So
we
are
we're
not
doing
protocols.
We
are
doing
reports
that
that
summarize
research
and
interact
with
those
people
who
are
doing
this
research
so
that
that's
the
edge
work,
but
we
also
have
other
things
on
on
the
plates.
A
D
Yes,
so
there
are
a
number
of
documents
which
were
adopted.
You
know
you
know
raw
is
not
designed
to
to
produce
standard
tracks
document
the
the
charter
is
only
for
informational
and
the
first
informational
documents
were
adopted
last
month
and
they
are
related
to
the
use
case.
So
we
have
a
use
case
document
and
they
are
related
to
technologies.
So
we
have
one
generic
technology
document
which
covers
5g
covers
ldax.
That's
a
link,
that's
defined
for
aviation.
D
D
And
now
then
we
have
a
third
document
on
technology,
which
is
one
which
is
very
specific
to
ldx,
because
that's
a
technology
that
people
are
not
very
well
used
to
so
so
we
have
that
one.
But
I
there
is.
There
is
an
interesting
one
on
5g
as
well,
which
is
actually
published
by
janus
group,
and
I
don't
know
that
there
was
a
call
for
adoption
for
that
one.
Yet,
yes,
maybe
you
can
tell
us
on
that.
D
Again,
oh
yes,
because
the
ldax
one
continues
because
they
wanted
to
to
give
us
more
information
than
than
the
gener
the
formatted
information
that
the
technology
document
has
okay.
So
I
was
not
sure
whether
you
wanted
to
continue
on
that
with
the
5g.
So
so
for
wi-fi
and
6
and
6-ish,
we
don't
have
a
separate
document.
Everything
is
in
this
technology's
document,
so
use
case.
Ldaps
and
technologies
are
the
ones
that
are
progressing
right
now
there
is,
there
is
a
personal
submission
for
the
architecture
and
framework.
D
D
C
C
R
R
So
the
idea
here
of
iot
ops
working
group
is
to
almost
have
like,
like
a
mops
like
discussion,
place
for
discussing
iot
things,
operational
issues
related
to
iot.
It
is
worth
pointing
out
the
idea
of
having
all
this
sort
of
working
group
has
been
around
in
the
icu
for
quite
a
while-
and
this
is
our
effort
of
trying
to
drive
that
forward
now,
there's
still
discussions
in
the
isg
as
to
exactly
what
shape
this
working
group
should
take.
R
So
the
chart
that
you've
got
there
that
you
that
that's
pointed
to
is
before
the
latest
discussions
have
happened.
Yes
in
the
icg,
so
it
is
changing
shape
a
little
bit
from.
What's
there
to
be
more
focused
like
mops
more
on
discussion,
it
will
potentially
work
on
informational
documents
describing
problems
and
maybe
requirements
related
to
managing
iot
networks
and
and
other
iot
operations.
R
So,
on
the
current
charter,
it's
suggesting
that
it
would
pick
up
the
mud
documents
from
ops,
awg
and
the
risky
work
from
anima.
The
current
plan
is
is
for
that
not
to
happen
so
so
there's
two
things
going
on
well,
there's
one
thing
going
on
is
this
sort
of
discussion
in
the
isg
is
getting
the
shape
of
this
working
group
right
and
then
the
plan
was
to
then
have
more
discussion
on
this
iot
ops
list
that
we
created
to
actually
work
on
the
charter.
R
It
may
be,
we
try
and
do
both
of
those
in
parallel,
but
with
the
with
the
warning
that
the
the
shape
the
working
group
might
change
depending
on
what
the
other
members
of
the
isg
think
does
that
make
sense.
Any
questions
related
to
that.
I
don't
know
warren
wants
to
add
anything
to
what
I've
been
saying
there.
S
S
As
rob
said,
the
idea
was
that
this
would
be
something
very
similar
to
mods.
I'm
not
sure
if
folks
are
familiar
with
the
mops
working
group,
it's
for
media
operations
and
it's
almost
sort
of
like
a
special
interest
group
where
people
who
are
interested
in
media
operations
and
gather
and
sort
of
discuss
how
things
work
their
findings
etc.
S
S
You
know
what
they've
learned,
how
things
work
that
sort
of
thing
again.
We
don't
really
have
an
easy
way
to
have
that
type
of
group
within
the
ietf
currently,
and
so
a
lot
of
the
back
and
forth
has
been
you
know.
What
would
this
sort
of
group
look
like?
How
do
we
have
groups
that
do
that
sort
of
thing,
and
that's
why
we've
mostly
been
having
discussions
amongst
ourselves?
S
P
This
is
very
late.
I'd
like
to
add
to
it
the
one
one
of
the
issues
is
people
come
to
the
ietf
and
say
who's.
Where
are
we
working
on
iot
things?
I
don't
see
anything
iot
related
here.
I
have
an
iot
thing.
I
want
to
bring
to
the
ietf
with
something
like
this.
They
now
know
where
to
take
it
and
that
group's
job
is
to
figure
out
the
best
way
to
get
it
through
our
process.
S
E
S
So
yeah
mops
was
at
a
bunch
of
ietf
meetings.
In
the
past
there
had
been
sort
of
five
meetings
where
people
who
are
involved
in
streaming,
media
and
sort
of
broadcast
media
would
get
together
and
chat
and
they
met
a
bunch
of
times
and
they
have
some
sort
of
unique
sets
of
requirements
for
the
network
and
mops
was
a.
S
P
B
Yeah,
so
ngi
was
even
before
the
site
meeting,
so
it
was
not
really
epic,
but
but
the
point
is
that
video,
for
instance,
is
touching
not
only
networking
but
also
transport.
It's
touching
multiple
areas,
pretty
much
like
iot.
By
the
way,
and
once
the
protocol
has
been
designed
and
deployed,
we
still
need
to
understand
how
to
best
deploy
them
or
to
best
combine
different
ietf
protocol.
B
So
it
was
not
only
about
chatting.
It
was
really
discussing
and
sharing
experience
there
and
how
it
works.
That's
mainly
presentation
at
the
mops
and
by
the
way
there
is
a
mobs
interim
in
two
hours
today,
so
you
may
want
to
join
just
to
get
a
taste
of
it,
even
if
you
don't
really
participate,
and
one
of
the
points
of
this
is
not
only
to
share
experience
but
also
getting
people,
I
mean
in
the
real
physical
meeting
hey.
This
looks
interesting
for
me.
I
will
go
there
and
basically
learn
about
new
thing.
B
S
T
Yeah,
so
this
is
hank.
I
have
a
procedural
question
here,
and
this
is
just
very
carefully
a
phrase
I
assume
when
we.
So
there
are
decisions
to
be
made
and
these
decisions
are
made,
for
example,
and
that
is
very
apparent
not
using
the
list,
and
that
is
a
deliberate
decision.
That
is
fine,
I
assume.
So
what
what
my
question
here
is.
If
you
need
input,
I
think
this
has
to
be
very
carefully
orchestrated.
I
mean
we
could
do
this
in
this
scope.
T
You
can
do
it
in
other
scopes,
but
my
assumption
is,
for
example,
the
the
notions
of
this
is
less
about.
Protocols,
for
example,
is
a
little
bit
surprising.
Maybe
of
course
now
my
adorable
rings
is
fun
and
home
office
all
the
day,
and
so
so
maybe
maybe
getting
planning
how
to
get
input.
If
there
are
questions
or
interesting
ideas
to
be
tested
in
in
some
scopes
that
doesn't
have
to
be,
I
don't
know
the
high
or
idf
that
could
be
considered
here.
Maybe.
S
S
Part
of
the
I
mean
I
guess
it's.
This
is
probably
well
known.
The
idea
of
having
something
iot
related
has
been
kicking
around
in
the
iitf
for
many
many
many
many
years,
but
the
concern
has
often
been
that
because
iot
itself
is
so
poorly
defined
like
what
exactly
an
iot
is.
There's
been
concern
about.
You
know
what
all
is
the
scope
and
that's
been
going
back
and
forth
and
there's
been
some
sort
of
concern
or
confusion
about
how
one
makes
sure
the
scope
covers
what
we
intend
it
to.
T
So
I
didn't
want
to
interrupt.
I
I
was
a
little
bit
distracted.
I
think
the
the
question
of
intent
has
its
own
scope,
so
so
it
was
shaping
scope
after
intent.
By
still
shaping
the
scope
of
intent
is,
like
I
don't
know
somehow
structured,
I
think.
Isn't
it
or
is
this
just
what
I
just
perceived
in
them
and
it's
a
misconception.
S
But
I
think
sort
of
it
still
goes
back
to
the
initial
idea
was,
is
even
such
a
thing
possible.
I
suspect.
Maybe
this
is
a
you
know.
We
should
have
this
discussion
more
on
the
list
and
go
back
and
forth
I'm
trying
to
come
up
with
a
or
rob,
and
I
are
trying
to
come
up
with
a
sort
of
updated
version
of
what
we
might
think
might
possibly
be
a
workable
charter,
and
we
should
probably
share
that
with
the
list
to
make
sure
that
people
have
a
reasonable
understanding.
S
T
So,
let's
think
again,
okay,
so
this
is
hank
again,
so
I
was
under
the
assumption
that
the
the
lacmos
test
was
already
done
and
that
there
is
interest.
So
I
assume
that
is
the
whole
motivator
here
and
so
assuming
that
this
this
chart
ring
is
now
happening,
something
else.
So
typically
what
you
would
do
here
assess
the
interest,
I
think
and
then
and
then
have
this
very
loud
and
broad
and
maybe
even
lengthy
discussion.
T
But
if
you
want
to
streamline
that,
I
think
that
doesn't
change
the
assumption.
Doesn't
it
so
I
think
the
assumption
still
remains
that
this
is
somehow
required
and-
and
if
that
is
in
question,
my
my
they
should
be
tested
again,
we
need
to.
Maybe
you
need
another
luck,
most
test
with
the
things
that
had
happened.
R
So
so
I
I
think,
there's
reasonable
support
for
this,
and
I
think
I
agree
it
makes
it
test
this.
I
I
think
the
best
way
forward
is
potentially
to
try
and,
as
warren
says,
share.
The
current
updated
chart
we're
thinking
of
with
the
list,
and
I
agree
that
having
that
discussion
framed
makes
sense
and
then
for
warren,
and
I
to
also
at
the
same
time,
liaise
liaisg
to
make
sure
that,
what's
being
what's
being
proposed,
makes
sense
and
and
gets
agreement
on
that
side
as
well.
S
Yes
sure
and
again
there
wasn't
a
meeting,
yet
this
was
still
more
a
you
know,
discussion
on.
Is
it
possible
to
even
form
this
sort
of
a
group?
I
think
people
might
have
the
impression
that
this
is
a
lot
further
along
than
it
is
and
not
just
a
you
know,
hey
we
want
to
try
and
see
if
something
like
this
is
even.
A
C
C
E
E
Q
The
8259
is
the
one
that
is
basically
things
to
think
about.
9289A
is
the
actual
baseline,
with
actual
you
know,
proposed
requirements
and
then
various
other
orgs
like
eight
or
nine
different
orgs
that
had
specifications
that
met
those
requirements.
Earlier
this
month,
nist
organized
a
workshop
to
spread
knowledge
about
that
and
to
get
some
community
discussion,
and
I
was
one
of
the
invited
panelists
and
so.
Q
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
this
workshop
happened
and
that
there's
a
document
on
cyber
security
risks
and
consumer
home
iot
products.
That
document
was
pointed
to
the
suit
working
group.
I
think
at
a
previous
ietf
meeting
108.
I
think,
since
it
was
published
before
then,
and
the
workshop
that
nist
hosted
was
just
this
month.
Last
week,
I'll
post
a
link
in
the
code
emd.