IETF 87 APPSAWG minutes Berlin 9:00am Monday Mark Nottingham volunteered as jabber scribe. John Levine is taking minutes. Administrivia: blue sheets, Note Well, etc. == APPSAWG Section == Salvatore presented a document status update. We heard a presentation from Haibin Song proposing that APPSAWG take up the work of developing service templates (draft-song-appsawg-service-template). Dave Crocker mentioned that this seems to overlap with some of what SDN is doing. Pete Resnick suggested that OPS might be a better place to present this work. Peter Saint-Andre mentioned the aggregated service discovery work Cyrus Daboo has been developing. He will provide a reference. == APPAREA Section == Murray listed the WGs that have chartered since IETF 86. Quick summaries were presented by several of the co-chairs of those WGs. BoF chairs were also invited to present. Barry specifically highlighted the IPRBIS BoF since it will be editing the Note Well and the IPR policies of the IETF. Barry introduced (virtually) Claudio Alocchio who is taking over management of the Applications Area Directorate, and thanked SM for his service in that role. There's some general work on improving the timing of the reviews so that they are not rushed yet are delivered at a point when document and authors still have time to make good use of them. Pete went into details about this, specifically the complaints that the reviews are "tail heavy"; we're piloting the notion of getting directorates to look at documents earlier in the process. Murray pointed out that there's an RFC about how to write a document that makes SecDir happy (Security Considerations); should APPS write such a thing? Barry pointed out that this is on the wiki, and this needs to be highlighted to document authors. Barry spoke about the fact that the IESG is piloting the idea of including the WG on IESG deliberations about its documents, to improve visibility, give the WG more ownership over a document through its approval process, and force the ADs to be more responsible about what they're saying. Pete pointed out that this can get a little unmanageable if it gets out of control, so some common practices about how to handle the interaction seem to be in order. This is happening organically, but so far response has been positive. Dave Crocker expressed some concern about this scaling to all working groups, because "everybody will have to change". Discussion and clarifications occurred for a while. Barry gave kudos to the CoAP document from the CORE WG. It clearly had a lot of hard work put into it, such that it earned eight YES ballots. Barry opened the floor to commentary about what we're doing right, and what we're doing wrong, and how the Area Directors are doing, in the Applications Area. Larry Masinter mentioned that there are a lot of willful violations of IETF specs over in W3C space. W3C was dismayed that we closed IRI, for example, because that work of updating old specs needs to happen. Joe Hildebrand agreed; we have consistently chased off people who have come to try to get this work done, and this needs to be fixed. This led to a discussion of IETF's "marketing", dealing with different kinds of groups, etc. Mark Nottingham suggested that sometimes the IETF needs to consider ceding control of some documents to other SDOs if we don't want to take care of them anymore. A proposal to promote use of the Independent Submission stream was discussed. John Klensin reminded us that we are not the Internet police, and have limited power to assert. Tony Hanson mentioned that he got a "why bother?" response when he brought work to APPSAWG recently; if we want to encourage people to do this maintenance work, we shouldn't discourage them. Larry Masinter talked about having a standing WG to do ongoing maintenance of this sort of document; Mark Nottingham thinks this might work with strong chairs and attentive Area Directors. A brief update from the JOSE working group was presented. Early APPS review is desired and thus hereby requested. Paul Hoffman presented an overview of CBOR and requested reviews and comments, as it is in IETF Last Call. Peter Saint-Andre points out that there are other things out there that do this sort of work; Paul says the document acknowledges their existence and compares CBOR to those mechanisms, which may be more appropriate for certain applications. Marc Blanchet suggested an additional type of "IP address" since it's highly common in IETF work; Paul suggested that it can simply be registered later, and the document provides the extension method for doing so. There was a presentation on Aggregated Service Discovery, a sequel to the Orlando BoF on the same topic. Progress was described, as well as the possibility of a second BoF in Vancouver. Is this a topic still of interest to the Applications Area? Pete Resnick said what's missing from the discussion is server discovery (who has the information you want), and what question are you going to ask it? Dave Crocker encouraged finding industry-scale adopters. John Levine presented about his DNS extension language, meant to ease the addition of support for new RR types to DNS provisioning systems, which is where most of the adaptation friction has traditionally been. Mark Nottingham suggests putting this work in a well-known URI maintained with IANA. Patrik Faltstrom expressed support for moving this work forward. Several other suggestions were made, and the group decided to take this to the list. Andrew Sullivan and John Levine discussed their ideas for identifying the point in the DNS tree where policy authority breaks (administrative boundaries) exist. Each has a proposal out for consideration. Dave Crocker pointed out that there have been several projects that tried this, but all have failed because of the "too many lookups" problem. Some discussion took place about whether doing this in the DNS is the right place (Peter Koch) and being cautious to leave authoritative data stays with the authoritative ADMD (Patrik Faltstrom). Meeting adjourned at 11:30.