IPsecME at IETF 93 July 21, 2015 0900 - 0950 Minutes taken by Yaron Sheffer Process discussion: whether/how should the WG continue? • Dan H - just close the WG. • Yoav: Need a place for drafts. Even if not active, we need a group. Should restart the DDoS discussion. If no interest on the list, there is no point in the draft. • Paul W: leave the group open. There is more and more uptake of IPsec in the mobile phone industry. DDoS: not convinced that the draft can solve the problem. Opportunistic Security (not a draft yet) work going on. Will be a future draft. OK with 2-3 people as consensus, if they represent different implementations. 6 core people is fine. • Valery: group should remain open. Encourage people to be more active. Should not relax the schedule. More interesting items could be brought in. • Tommy Pauly: "we" also support keeping the group open. Would like to be more involved in next few months. DDoS: not very interested in the draft as-is, maybe if other ideas come up. • Kathleen: how would closing the group affect new ideas? Would people still get corporate support if not in a WG? • Yoav: my company doesn't understand the IETF. They don't care. Tommy: it would be harder if no WG. • Kathleen: speaking of encouraging people - this can be people who are not in the room, e.g. developers. Ask colleagues to review. • Brian Weis: YANG models are important to get right. IPsecME should work on them. Paul: remember the IPS WG? (I think he meant IPSP - ed.) There is now lots of energy in general around YANG. We need to decide about YANG before we close. • Tero: we should keep the group open. A handful of people working on implementations, these are also the same people who comment. So we end up with comments from very few people who are not the authors. 2-3 core people are a consensus. We have some IANA allocations because we did not get [IPSP]. A company doesn't know how IETF/IPsecMe works. • Valery: even a few comments are enough. • Daniel: having a face-to-face session provides the ability to get feedback from room. Not meeting every time is OK. • Tero: that's very important. Another function of the WG is in having the chairs that are filtering the uninteresting drafts. Yaron: no we don't. DDoS: Paul W: not interesting for now. Tero: the draft is coming too early, we haven't seen such attacks. Especially implementation details, as opposed to the protocol. Not clear if/when will implement the draft if published. Curve25519 (Yoav): No significant comments. YANG (Scott Mansfield): They will work with the authors of the other draft to consolidate them. Who would be willing to review? around 5 regulars. Yoav: need more explanation in draft so IPsec folks can review. Tommy Pauly: more focus on IKEv2 semantics, IKEv2 terms. Daniel: willing to help with that. Scott: expect a new draft within a month or two. Tero: need to still support IKE version 1, not just v2.