**Meeting Minutes for the IETF-70 NSIS WG** MONDAY, December 3, 2007 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I WG Chair(s): John Loughney Martin Stiemerling Send any change request to nsis-chairs@tools.ietf.org * Agenda Bashing (2 minutes) * NOTE WELL (1 minute) * WG Status (20 minutes) Milestones Review Document Status and Accomplishments - GIST update https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp/ - QoS NSLP and QSPEC https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qspec/ - IPv4 and IPv6 RAO discussion - latest status John and Martin went through the slides. John asks whether someone has objections against the modification of the QSPEC draft to accomplish alingment with the DIME and the TSV WG. No objections Router Alert options: Jukka mention discussions at the INTAREA meeting to come to a conclusion. Jukka: Says that there is rough consensus about the problem. Just a question on how to fix it. Open AI for the chairs about updating the milestones. * NAT/FW NSLP - Hannes Tschofenig (5 minutes) https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw/ Hannes gives a short presentation. The document is done. WGLC will be forwarded to BEHAVE and 3GPP2. Three reviewers appointed: * Jukka Manner * Teemu Huovila (thuovila@cs.helsinki.fi) * Lauri Liuhto (lliuhto@cs.helsinki.fi) * Mobility Applicability Statement - Takako Sanda (10 minutes) https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling/ Takako goes through her slides. Martin: Addresses comments regarding a new GIST API. Takako: Add to one of the sections in the mobility draft. John: It would be OK to raise these issues during the WGLC. Hannes: Addresses comments and argues that they shouldn't be dealt within the NATFW NSLP document. They are more generic and should go into the mobility draft. * GIST over SCTP - Xiaoming Fu (10 minutes) https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-sctp/ Xiaoming presents his slides. Magnus: There are 2 ways to run TLS over SCTP. Xiaoming: Yep. Hannes: suggests to go for option 1 John: How important is the usage of SCTP for GIST? Unless someone has a strong usage for GIST over SCTP then we should postpone the work. We should finish the main work first. Magnus: The right question is to figure out whether we need to have PR-SCTP. How important is this? Xiaoming: If you want partial reliability then you might not want to have as high security anyway. John: Martin and I will have an AI on the importance of PR-SCTP usage for GIST. * RMD-QOSM - Martin Stiemerling (5 minutes) https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-rmd/ Martin goes through the RMD-QOSM. Changes based on Hannes's review. It is depending on GIST and QoS NSLP and once another WGLC will be done, if needed. * NSIS Extensibility Model (5 minutes) https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-nsis-ext/ John gives a presentation. Draft will have to be reformatted. Hannes has a question about the scope of the document. Raises the aspect of vendor-specific extensions Did someone go through our documents to check which specifications could actually use vendor-specific extensions. John: I will discuss some of these tradeoffs. Martin: This is actually the purpose. People would consult the document in order to determine whether they just need a new object or a totally new NSLP. * Y.1541 QOSM - Al Morton (5 minutes) https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm/ Al goes through the resolution of comments by Hannes. * Authorization for NSLP protocols, Jukka Manner (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manner-nsis-nslp-auth-03 Jukka goes through his slides. Martin: This document is pretty useful. Jukka: The NATFW NSLP makes a lot of reference to the authorization token doc. John: Resubmit the draft. Solicit reviews and then we could chat with our ADs Lars: I would strongly suggest that we publish current WG items first. There are 8 or 9 WG items left. Magnus: Can the NATFW NSLP go forward without the authorization document? BCP 61 requires a mandatory to implement security mechanism. Hannes: Yes. * DCCP transport for GIST, Jukka Manner (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manner-nsis-gist-dccp-00 Jukka goes through his slides. * Next Steps John: Asks the question what should be done yet. Hannes: The deployment questions are different for each signaling applications. One of the reasons for not getting them deployed is that we don't have the main documens finished (e.g., in the case of MIH that was a problem). Lars: We need to send clear signal to other WGs and other SDOs that the main protocol documents are getting done. Seong Ho: We should finish the documents asap so that other SDOs (such as the ITU-T) can make use of the work. Takako: The 3GPP has had discussions about e2e 2 years ago. There were discussions about the usage of off-path and on-path variants. They are using off-path signaling. Seong Ho: Regarding the extensiblity document we need to refer to the framework and add some additional concepts, such as off-path signaling. John: Roland would be interested to know which vendors are going to implement the protocols.