March 29, 15:20PM – 16:30PM, Room 253, DECADE meeting @ IETF 83, Paris

Chairs: Richard Woundy (Rich Woundy), and Haibin Song

Meeting notes taken by Richard Alimi (Rich Alimi)

Responsible area director is Martin Stiemerling


Chairs Slides (Rich Woundy and Haibin Song)

     Lessons Learned

     Yingjie Gu: Can we use the term “DECADE-compatible”?

                                     Need to be clear on what it means

     Akbar Rahman: “DECADE-compatible system would have clients and servers that talk to each other” but describe properties of the system

     Martin Stiemerling (AD): Sounds like marketing discussion. We can just comment that it is DECADE, but it isn’t a DECADE protocol yet

     Rich Woundy: Leave rest to offline discussion with Martin Stiemerling

                                     Integration examples using a prototype -- the prototype is not DECADE since we havent event decided the protocol


Problem Statement (Haibin Song)

     Haibin Song: Is reference to RFC3414 sufficient?  Or should we change it to RFC4949?

     Rich Woundy: Do ADs care which one?

     Martin Stiemerling: Leave it as-is

     Haibin Song: any objections to removing examples referring to PPLive or Octoshape?

     No objections

     Add security risks?

     Leif: beginning had text along lines of end-to-end encryption would not work with decade. Long list of threat vectors typically addressed by encryption.  Expected to see text on how to resolve conflict. Draft needs to discuss this.

     Leif can help put together text for this

     References for P2P Caching

     Rich Alimi: Can we reference survey?

     Chairs: yes that should work

     Rich Woundy: Have authors and Rich Woundy work out RFC editor notes

     Send to Martin Stiemerling by April 20

Architecture (Akbar)

     Mandatory protocol

     Haibin Song: discussed with Martin Stiemerling

     conclusion was to not include in architecture document

     Martin Stiemerling (AD): Correct - don’t specify this in architecture document

     Akbar: Yes - that should probably be in next step of WG

     Rich Woundy: Does decade reqs say we need a mandatory one?

     Rich Alimi: Yes (quotes draft-ietf-decade-reqs-06)

     Rich Woundy: Have it done by April 20?

     Akbar Rahman/Rich Alimi/Dirk Kutscher: Should be doable


Integration Examples (Ning Zong)

     Yingjie Gu: why use INS instead of DECADE?

     Ning Zong: implementation is not “DECADE” since it is still under development

     Haibin Song: No DECADE protocol exists yet

     Rich Woundy: after DECADE is defined, experiments defined in the draft may or may not be applicable to that protocol

     Yingjie Gu: Storage server seems confusing

     Ning Zong: Suggest one?

     Rich Woundy: We can come up with one offline

     Rich Woundy: Reviewers: Akbar, Rich Woundy, Rich Alimi

     Reviews done by April 20


HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol (Danhua)

     Rich Woundy: reminder: this is not chartered work, but can serve as example for future work

     Remote Get message

     Rich Woundy: should explore using GET operation, and make the local DECADE server act like a proxy

     Rich Alimi: Agree - try to use HTTP GET

     Haibin Song: Agree as well

     Access and Resource Control

     Haibin Song: Don’t think Kerberos is the right solution for resource control; OAuth may apply if DRP is HTTP and especially data transport

     Rich Alimi: Seems like about time to just write a protocol using OAuth and see where we run into trouble

Charter Revisions (Rich Woundy and Haibin Song)

     Rich Alimi: Be sure we’re in sync with having a mechanism other than extending data transport protocol itself

     Rich Woundy: Yes - need to see since changing charter requires more process outside of WG

     Martin Stiemerling: No comment so far - still need to digest it