IETF Technical Plenary Session Tuesday, 21 July 2015 Prague, Czech Republic Minutes by Cindy Morgan and Carlos Pignataro 1. Welcome Andrew Sullivan welcomed the community to the IETF 93 Technical Plenary. 2. Reporting 2.1. IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan delivered the IAB Chair report: Andrew Sullivan noted that the full status report is available in the slides. He highlighted the call for community input on draft-iab-doi, noting that the comments received to date raised a concern about the process used (e.g., asking for community input on the draft once there was already something implemented); the IAB agreed that the process used for the DOI draft was not ideal and is considering how to better handle future documents of that sort. Andrew Sullivan reported that the IAB is experimenting with ways to empower IAB Programs, such as allowing Programs to make their own consensus statements as correspondence from the Program Lead. The IAB is hosting a workshop with ISOC, AT&T, and GSMA on Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World (MaRNEW). The workshop will be held in Atlanta in September. Ted Hardie reported that the IAB received an appeal from JFC Morfin on the IESG response to previous appeal of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg- response. Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Russ Housley, Andrew Sullivan, and Suzanne Woolf were recused from discussing this appeal. After consideration, the non-recused IAB declined to annul the decision of the IESG. 2.2. IRTF Chair Lars Eggert delivered the IRTF Chair report: Lars Eggert reported that that in 2015, there were 33 nominations for the Applied Networking Research Prize; five winners were selected, and have been presenting their work at the IRTF Open Meetings. The winners presenting at IETF 93 were Haya Shulman (for analyzing the deficiencies of DNS privacy approaches) and João Luís Sobrinho (for designing a route-aggregation technique that allows filtering while respecting routing policies). Nominations for the 2016 prize are open now. The IRTF and ISOC will host a workshop on Research and Applications of Internet Measurements (RAIM) on 31 October 2015 in Yokohama, Japan. 2.3. RFC Series Editor Heather Flanagan delivered the RFC Series Editor (RSE) report: Heather Flanagan noted that the the current SLA is not measuring the right things, and that the SLA model will change in 2016. When the new model is applied to the last 3 quarters, the SLA was met. The RFC Production Center contract is currently out to bid; bids are welcome through 3 August 2015. The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) assignment and Google Scholar indexing projects have been completed. In-progress projects include the ongoing RFC Format work, digital preservation of RFCs, and the new RFC Editor website. 3. Technical Topic: Vehicular Communications Vehicular communications systems, where networked vehicles and roadside nodes provide safety warnings and traffic information, hold the promise of increased safety and efficiency. Christoph Sommer, Assistant Professor at the University of Paderborn, and William Whyte, Chief Scientist at Security Innovation, discussed the motivation, evolution, trends, and challenges of vehicular networking. In addition to the underlying networking technologies and protocols, the session covered issues of security and privacy related to vehicular communications, and how those differ from other networking contexts. Christoph Sommer, "Vehicular Networking" William Whyte, "Communications Security for Cooperative Intelligent Transportation Systems (C-ITS)" At the end of the presentations, Russ Housley moderated a question- and-answer session with the audience. * Henning Schulzrinne asked if the current emergence of widespread 4G/ LTE might make a dedicated protocol stack for non-safety applications outdated before it can be widely deployed. Christoph Sommer replied that it feels that way: mobile networks promise a lot. Yet, while they can certainly help in early phases of market introduction, it also introduces a dependency of applications on their presence and on the operator's goodwill. * Dave Crocker asked about practicality, observing that there are no production mechanisms in this space that have approached the scale of the performance requirements. William Whyte replied that this is a valid concern given the unique constraints of the environment. There are a number of vendors that have announced that they can make the necessary hardware in the needed volume in time for deployments in 2017-2020. * Alistair Woodman asked whether the information collected about when a vehicle crosses a bridge or tunnel or pays a toll etc., can be subpoenaed and used against the driver. William Whyte replied the privacy concerns are great, but especially in America, the purpose is to save lives, and there is a limited amount that the Federal government can do because the regulations are at the state level. There are gray areas, like Amber Alerts; it is not clear whether that would result in a car being tracked. However, it is clear that the privacy concerns could hurt people's overall belief in the system. * Balazs Lengyel asked via Jabber if it will be a government requirement to allow vehicle tracking as there currently is for lawful interception today. William Whyte replied that he thinks there will be as little requirements for tracking as possible, so as not to deter people from using it. * Christian Huitema asked if there were plans to bring this technology into the IETF. William Whyte replied that there are no current plans, but the technology is open. They are building this public key infrastructure with a thousand certificates for every vehicle on the road, so the scale is massive. The certificate management systems will exist anyway to support Connected Vehicle use cases, and it would be interesting to see if it can be used in other settings. * Robin Wilton thanked the speakers for raising the ethical issues. He observed that he has heard questions about what happens when a vehicle needs to choose between potentially injuring a driver versus potentially injuring a pedestrian, but he thinks it needs to go further, e.g. a vehicle deciding which vendor's car to crash into. He asked what is being done on those algorithms? William Whyte replied that currently, they have been focused on getting the technology to work at all; once that progresses, we will see the ethical concerns being discussed in more detail. * Bob Hinden expressed frustration that two radio standards are being used when only one is needed. Additionally, in regards to the limitation on computing power, if the design is limited based on input from the vendors, it will not be enough. Christoph Sommer agreed. * Charlie Perkins asked if there is a difference between cars with drivers and self-driving cars. Christoph Sommer replied that on the higher application layer, there are huge differences depending on whether the car is self-driving or not, but at the physical MAC layer, there is no difference. * 4. Message from the ITU Secretary-General Andrew Sullivan introduced Houlin Zhao, the ITU Secretary-General. Houlin Zhao greeted the IETF community and put on the IETF t-shirt he received at the last IETF meeting he attended in July 1999. He stated that he would like to strengthen cooperation between the IETF and the ITU for standardization work, and also noted an important difference between the two organizations is that the ITU works top down while the IETF works bottom up. Andrew Sullivan presented Houlin Zhao with an IETF Hackathon t-shirt. 5. IAB Open Mic Noting that the plenary was in danger of running past its scheduled time with both the CARIS workshop report and the IAB open microphone session remaining, Andrew Sullivan said that if there were any questions for the IAB, then they would skip the CARIS report. Andrew Sullivan asked the audience if anyone had questions for the IAB. No questions were raised; Andrew promised to follow up with the community via email. 6. Highlight: Coordinating Attack Response at Internet Scale (CARIS) Workshop Kathleen Moriarty presented a high-level overview of the output from the recent Coordinating Attack Response at Internet Scale (CARIS) workshop: One of the workshop goals was to bring together diverse groups in order to better collaborate and scale attack responses. The next steps identified during the workshop discussions include: - Education and outreach on Best Practices - Assist RIRs with improved tools to better scale access to their public resources to assist operators and CSIRTs - Protocol options to exchange formatted data - Interest expressed for future meetings, organized by neutral organization (ISOC, IAB, etc.)