Subject: [Ippm-ioam-ix-dt] IOAM Meeting Summary, April 28th, 2021

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:22:54 +0300

IPPM IOAM Design Team
Virtual meeting
April 28th, 2021, 06:00 UTC
Webex meeting

Attendees:
Frank Brockners, Greg Mirsky, Shwetha Bhandari, Tal Mizrahi.

Minutes by Tal Mizrahi.

Summary
=======
- In response to the IESG comments: Tal will respond to Alvaro and Eric.
- Frank has responded to Lars, Francesca, Murray, Roman. Frank will
respond to Ben.

Data Draft IESG Comment Resolution
==================================
Tal: there are several DISCUSS's and COMMENT's that we need to discuss.
Frank: Roman's comments about domain terminology - need to mention RFC
8799 about "limited domains". I will take that.
Tal: comment from Roman about Security - I will take that.
Frank: some of the comments are related to IOAM deployment. We need to
update the deployment draft about security. Tal - look at Shawn's
comments again, and think of a paragraph that will go into the
deployment draft.
Tal: I will do that.
Tal: I can take Roman's "Comment" - I will create a reply.
[Edited after the meeting - Frank has already responded to Roman]
Greg: is the deployment draft a normative reference in the data draft?
Frank: it is a chicken egg problem. The deployment draft needs to be a
WG document. It is an open question.
Frank: regarding Lar's DISCUSS about mandatory trace options we have
already resolved it.
Tal: regarding Ben's comments - I will take a look at the POSIX problem.
Frank: regarding integrity protection - relates to the work we have
been doing. We need to revise the integrity draft, make it a WG
document, and that will likely resolve the issue.
Shwetha: maybe we need to make the integrity draft informative, in
order to avoid waiting for it.
Greg: speeding up the publication of the data draft may not be a major priority.
Frank: regarding Murray's and Francesca's comment - we have a
suggestion for updating the IANA considerations. We are waiting to
hear the feedback. I responded to Murray and Francesca. We need to
respond to Ben and Roman.
Tal: I will also respond to Alvaro and Eric.

Integrity Draft
===============
Shwetha: we had 5 options. All options but method 3 moved to an
appendix. Method 3 is the selected one. We added an asymmetric option
to method 3. We have an updated draft in Github that we are still
working on. One more thing is to support key changes, to allow the
validator to use the right key. We will need a key ID per node.
Frank: we will need a discussion about how to balance between security
and efficiency. Maybe selectively validate 1 of N packets. We need to
allow relaxed performance requirements on the data plane.