IETF
dtn@jabber.ietf.org
Wednesday, March 29, 2017< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[13:47:50] Meetecho joins the room
[13:48:15] Joseph joins the room
[13:55:13] Adam Schlesinger joins the room
[13:55:34] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[13:56:48] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[13:59:02] Edward Birrane joins the room
[14:00:59] Brenda Lyons joins the room
[14:02:21] Keith Scott joins the room
[14:02:24] sftcd joins the room
[14:04:00] <sftcd> anyone remote?
[14:04:15] Brian Sipos joins the room
[14:04:40] <sftcd> if you want anything relayed at the mic, please preface your comment with "mic:" and then i'll go to the mic for ya
[14:04:49] <Brian Sipos> yes, I've just arrived a bit late
[14:05:10] <sftcd> just starting now really
[14:06:23] <Ronald in 't Velt> thanks. stephen
[14:07:12] <sftcd> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-dtn-bundle-protocol-status-00.pdf slide 4 now
[14:08:46] <sftcd> chairs mumble between themselves:-)
[14:09:56] <Keith Scott> I'm strongly opposed to removing custody transfer to another document.
[14:11:35] <Keith Scott> If we decouple custody transfer then it may allow nodes to just not ever implement reliability.
[14:11:41] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[14:12:07] <Keith Scott> They'll implement the 'base' RFC5050bis and just not implement the custody transfer extension.
[14:13:57] sftcd joins the room
[14:14:35] sftcd leaves the room
[14:14:39] <Keith Scott> And all it takes is one node in the path to NOT implement custody transfer to require (in order to provide reliability) source-based retransmit.
[14:15:59] Keith Scott_1927 joins the room
[14:16:01] <Brian Sipos> Is the intent of the doc split to submit/approve them in a separate sequence? Or would they follow separate paths (base approved fully while the 'custody doc' follows its own path)?
[14:16:21] sftcd leaves the room
[14:16:33] sftcd joins the room
[14:16:41] <marc.blanchet.qc> it enables just to get them done async, so we can ship bpbis now and in parallel continue working to define custody
[14:16:47] <Keith Scott_1927> OK, so my last isn't really true.
[14:16:52] Keith Scott leaves the room
[14:17:03] spencerdawkins joins the room
[14:17:18] <Brian Sipos> Sorry, I meant to ask approval together vs. separate.
[14:17:34] <Keith Scott_1927> Since the non-custody-implementing nodes will just 'pass' custody.
[14:18:16] <Brian Sipos> I'm not against the split in any way, just trying to understand. Thanks for the clarification.
[14:18:22] patrick hu joins the room
[14:18:40] <Keith Scott_1927> [thanks for relaying]
[14:19:11] <Ronald in 't Velt> Pulling out Custody Transfer into a separate document is fine with me. Up to now, I have failed to understand how CT could ever be usefully combined with any multi-copy DTN routing strategy (but that may be just due to my ignorance)
[14:19:30] <marc.blanchet.qc> I see that Keith and Brian are also on meet echo. You can use meet echo to hear you in the room.
[14:22:04] <sftcd> @keith: any more you'd like me to say on this topic? I think you're the one "opposing" the change
[14:22:51] <marc.blanchet.qc> keith, would be willing to be the editor of the custody doc?
[14:22:52] <Keith Scott_1927> I'm fine for now -- I'll follow up on the list.
[14:23:00] <Keith Scott_1927> Yes, will be editor of CT doc.
[14:23:29] <Ronald in 't Velt> Thanks, Marc, I might ....:)
[14:23:49] <marc.blanchet.qc> ok, lets have Scott and you take care of this handover offline
[14:23:58] <sftcd> marc has a big red button he wants to hit to allow remote folks speak:-)
[14:24:01] <sftcd> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-dtn-implementation-of-bpv7-bis-in-pcn-00.pdf
[14:24:28] <spencerdawkins> I'm juggling while trying to pay attention, but was it obvious whether custody transfer was going to be MUST, SHOULD, or MAY in the BPbis document?
[14:25:47] <sftcd> @spencer: I think the definition of the custody requested flag is in the base doc, but the code for whether or not you react to that will be optional, as was always the case, not 100% about senders, but I think it was also always optional there
[14:27:19] <spencerdawkins> Stephen, thanks. That's what I was understanding, but I didn't remember anyone spelling that out, and wanted to ask before authors spent time splitting the documents.
[14:30:02] patrick hu leaves the room
[14:30:42] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[14:32:13] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[14:35:41] <sftcd> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-dtn-bpsec-updates-00.pdf
[14:37:02] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[14:38:12] <Brian Sipos> Have read a prior rev of BPSEC, not latest
[14:41:31] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[14:49:52] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[14:50:08] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[14:58:44] Brenda Lyons leaves the room
[14:59:03] Brenda Lyons joins the room
[15:00:13] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[15:03:35] <sftcd> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-msg/
[15:03:41] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[15:07:48] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[15:10:21] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[15:13:23] <Keith Scott_1927> But with BIB and BCB you get the ability to protect individual BLOCKS, so yes, I think Stephen's notion is to protect all or none of a BLOCK, but you don't have to authenticate whole bundles.
[15:17:03] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[15:17:18] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[15:17:59] <Keith Scott_1927> That's what Ed just said
[15:25:53] Brenda Lyons leaves the room
[15:26:28] <sftcd> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-dtn-tcpcl-00.pdf
[15:27:02] Simon Pietro Romano joins the room
[15:27:45] Brenda Lyons joins the room
[15:28:48] Simon Pietro Romano leaves the room
[16:01:29] <spencerdawkins> Ran has been around longer than I have, but I believe that for most protocols, the use cases requiring extensions don't become obvious until five minutes after the RFC is announced :D
[16:06:17] <sftcd> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-dtn-ama-slides-00.pdf
[16:08:45] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[16:30:06] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[16:30:35] Brian Sipos leaves the room
[16:30:35] Keith Scott_1927 leaves the room
[16:30:35] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[16:30:35] Edward Birrane leaves the room
[16:30:35] Brenda Lyons leaves the room
[16:30:35] Adam Schlesinger leaves the room
[16:33:49] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[16:36:32] Meetecho leaves the room
[16:36:47] Joseph leaves the room
[16:40:47] sftcd joins the room
[16:41:07] sftcd leaves the room
[16:51:39] sftcd leaves the room
[17:58:21] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[17:58:30] marc.blanchet.qc leaves the room
[19:00:58] spencerdawkins joins the room
[19:11:12] spencerdawkins leaves the room