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 haven’t 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