Subject: [Stackevo] Stack Evolution Program meeting in Yokohama: minutes

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:06:17 +0900

Greetings, all,

First, many thanks to Cindy for taking notes at the Stack Evolution Program meeting this morning.

One thing I've heard from a couple of different angles is that there's a lack of visibility into what is going on in the program. We need to do better reporting in general, but as a concrete first step I'd like to post the minutes of our meeting today to the program's page on iab.org, and announce this to (at least) the [email-masked] list. 

The level of detail I'm going for here is that of the IAB minutes (for program members not on the IAB and who don't regularly browse IAB minutes for fun, see e.g. https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2015/), perhaps slightly (but not much) more. The minutes will be available to the program for review before posting.

Please let me know if you have any objections, or suggestions of other places to post the announcement of the minutes.

Thanks, cheers,

Brian (program lead hat)

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:16:11 +0900

Hi, Brian,

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Brian Trammell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> One thing I've heard from a couple of different angles is that there's a
> lack of visibility into what is going on in the program. We need to do
> better reporting in general, but as a concrete first step I'd like to post
> the minutes of our meeting today to the program's page on iab.org, and
> announce this to (at least) the [email-masked] list.
>
> The level of detail I'm going for here is that of the IAB minutes (for
> program members not on the IAB and who don't regularly browse IAB minutes
> for fun, see e.g. https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2015/),
> perhaps slightly (but not much) more. The minutes will be available to the
> program for review before posting.
>
> Please let me know if you have any objections, or suggestions of other
> places to post the announcement of the minutes.
>
> Thanks, cheers,
>
> Brian (program lead hat)
>

I'd suggest posting to TSVAREA for the MaRNEW part of our discussion.

I note that Natasha is on the agenda for SAAG (15 minutes). Perhaps there
as well (again, for the MaRNEW part of the discussion)?

Spencer

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:16:52 +0900

Can someone share the IoT Data Schema Workshop draft?

Thanks,

--aaron

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
>
>

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:10:41 +0000

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vs8f3AdT0hFAP4C1WUa9WMio8FuY8_X4-kdcbVMOemk/edit?usp=sharing

From: IAB [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Aaron Falk
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 2:17 PM
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Cc: Stackevo <[email-masked]>; IAB IAB <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [IAB] [Stackevo] Stack Evolution Program meeting in Yokohama: minutes

Thanks,

--aaron

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi, Brian,

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Brian Trammell <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Greetings, all,

One thing I've heard from a couple of different angles is that there's a lack of visibility into what is going on in the program. We need to do better reporting in general, but as a concrete first step I'd like to post the minutes of our meeting today to the program's page on iab.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fiab.org&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c90e4ed57500c4d75e5e008d2e40dfee1%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Ab6ZM6gCxa9lzXawoHY%2fnyI0lD9INtNBrpV8KbnZcEc%3d>, and announce this to (at least) the [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> list.

The level of detail I'm going for here is that of the IAB minutes (for program members not on the IAB and who don't regularly browse IAB minutes for fun, see e.g. https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2015/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.iab.org%2fdocuments%2fminutes%2fminutes-2015%2f&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c90e4ed57500c4d75e5e008d2e40dfee1%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=EKZJt8xlWATu4M5BIkB03XuMqfPSF6ePvJs9t%2bYelvk%3d>), perhaps slightly (but not much) more. The minutes will be available to the program for review before posting.

Thanks, cheers,

Brian (program lead hat)

I note that Natasha is on the agenda for SAAG (15 minutes). Perhaps there as well (again, for the MaRNEW part of the discussion)?

Spencer

_______________________________________________
Stackevo mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.iab.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fstackevo&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c90e4ed57500c4d75e5e008d2e40dfee1%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=YYysy88MvQXEUvlT2dkY%2bMR0MIYuZiS3eHbGxV9SVf0%3d>

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:36:56 +0900

Thanks, Dave!

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Dave Thaler <[email-masked]> wrote:

> *From:* IAB [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Falk
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 3, 2015 2:17 PM
> *To:* Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* Stackevo <[email-masked]>; IAB IAB <[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* Re: [IAB] [Stackevo] Stack Evolution Program meeting in
> Yokohama: minutes
>
>
>
> the minutes of our meeting today to the program's page on iab.org
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fiab.org&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c90e4ed57500c4d75e5e008d2e40dfee1%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Ab6ZM6gCxa9lzXawoHY%2fnyI0lD9INtNBrpV8KbnZcEc%3d>,
> and announce this to (at least) the [email-masked] list.
>
> for fun, see e.g. https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2015/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.iab.org%2fdocuments%2fminutes%2fminutes-2015%2f&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c90e4ed57500c4d75e5e008d2e40dfee1%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=EKZJt8xlWATu4M5BIkB03XuMqfPSF6ePvJs9t%2bYelvk%3d>),
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.iab.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fstackevo&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c90e4ed57500c4d75e5e008d2e40dfee1%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=YYysy88MvQXEUvlT2dkY%2bMR0MIYuZiS3eHbGxV9SVf0%3d>
>
>
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:44:11 +0100

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry I couldn't join you in Yokohama.  I do have a question about
this proposed workshop.  Under "A number of questions arise", there is
actually no mention of IoT.  The problem statement, as it stands, also
does not seem to be unique to IoT.  We've seen these sorts of modest
differences in models forever both in the IETF and I'll add in Cisco. 
So what makes IoT different such that you call it out in the headline? 
Why do you think there is room for success here, where even in the
considerably more constrained world of routing it took us 30 years to
even begin to get a handle on this (and arguably we have not)?

Eliot

On 11/4/15 3:10 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:
> *From:*IAB [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Falk
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi, Brian,
>
>      
>
>         One thing I've heard from a couple of different angles is that
>         there's a lack of visibility into what is going on in the
>         program. We need to do better reporting in general, but as a
>         concrete first step I'd like to post the minutes of our
>         meeting today to the program's page on iab.org
>         and announce this to (at least) the [email-masked]
>         <mailto:[email-masked]> list.
>
>         The level of detail I'm going for here is that of the IAB
>         minutes (for program members not on the IAB and who don't
>         regularly browse IAB minutes for fun, see e.g.
>         https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2015/
>         perhaps slightly (but not much) more. The minutes will be
>         available to the program for review before posting.
>
>         Please let me know if you have any objections, or suggestions
>         of other places to post the announcement of the minutes.
>
>         Thanks, cheers,
>
>         Brian (program lead hat)
>
>      
>
>     I note that Natasha is on the agenda for SAAG (15 minutes).
>     Perhaps there as well (again, for the MaRNEW part of the discussion)?
>
>      
>
>     Spencer 
>
>      
>
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:48:36 +0000

My opinions: I think the writeup needs to be updated to be scoped to IoT.

One of the primary scenarios (consumer homes):
* is not professionally managed,
* has heterogeneous (multiple vendor ecosystems) devices within the same network,
* interoperability is expected by the users, and
* multiple types of developers (both hub vendors and some app vendors) want to communicate with the largest possible set of devices,
* multiple, but not all the ones on the list, organizations exist defining schemas that don’t know about each other (or at least don’t know enough) but would not be inherently opposed to such sharing

I suspect that one or more of the above bullets will be different in other domains like routing, which would result in a very different discussion.

And the dynamics of the specific organizations involved here may be different from those in other domains with similar problems of competing schemas.

Dave

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 2:44 PM
To: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>; Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>; Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Cc: Stackevo <[email-masked]>; IAB IAB <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo] [IAB] Stack Evolution Program meeting in Yokohama: minutes

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry I couldn't join you in Yokohama.  I do have a question about this proposed workshop.  Under "A number of questions arise", there is actually no mention of IoT.  The problem statement, as it stands, also does not seem to be unique to IoT.  We've seen these sorts of modest differences in models forever both in the IETF and I'll add in Cisco.  So what makes IoT different such that you call it out in the headline?  Why do you think there is room for success here, where even in the considerably more constrained world of routing it took us 30 years to even begin to get a handle on this (and arguably we have not)?

Eliot

From: IAB [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Aaron Falk
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 2:17 PM
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: Stackevo <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>; IAB IAB <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [IAB] [Stackevo] Stack Evolution Program meeting in Yokohama: minutes

Thanks,

--aaron

Thanks, cheers,

Brian (program lead hat)

Spencer

Stackevo mailing list

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:24:35 +0100

Thanks, Dave.  I'm reducing back to the program for the other comments,
and please see below:

On 11/5/15 12:48 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:
> * multiple types of developers (both hub vendors and some app vendors)
> want to communicate with the largest possible set of devices,
>
> * multiple, but not all the ones on the list, organizations exist
> defining schemas that don’t know about each other (or at least don’t
> know enough) but would not be inherently opposed to such sharing
>
>  
>
> I suspect that one or more of the above bullets will be different in
> other domains like routing, which would result in a very different
> discussion.
>

Indeed.  Home versus pizza parlor versus a hospital versus an oil rig
versus The Office.  I wonder if the program is adverse to something
along the following lines:

  * How must the notion of commonality within an information model
    evolve to accommodate smart objects [/things]?
  * What are the economics behind sharing and not sharing?  I write this
    because there are, in some cases, quite strong motivations for NOT
    sharing.

These sorts of bullets might ground the discussion a bit more. 
Otherwise it begins to sound like the goal of the workshop is to make
nice with other SDOs and harmonize their work, a task that Don Quixote
would admire; and one risks having a very VERY meta discussion.

There is also another aspect that maybe is out of scope of this
workshop, and maybe it shouldn't be: the connection model.  For certain
classes of Things, CoAP will be appropriate.  Other others, maybe not so
much.  This doesn't generally impact the information model, but it is a
feature of interoperability that one must still get at the information
;-)  And so, here might be an additional bullet:

  * How do constraints of [smart objects/Things] impact not only the
    information model, but overall communication model?

I've resisted getting into security aspects, which are not mentioned in
the CfP.  On the whole I think that's good because (a) they'll come up
anyway, and (b) one could run an entire workshop on the security of IoT.

Lastly, and most trivially, the IAB has some existing work in this space
that isn't mentioned under the label of smart objects.  Perhaps the ship
has sailed, but you may want to mention what you are building on (or
repudiating if you believe that is appropriate).

Anyway, if people would like I can place these edits into the Google
doc; but as I wrote earlier, I wasn't in the room for the meeting, and
so perhaps I misunderstand the goals.

Eliot

>
> And the dynamics of the specific organizations involved here may be
> different from those in other domains with similar problems of
> competing schemas.
>
>  
>
> Dave
>
>  
>
> *From:*Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2015 2:44 PM
> *To:* Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>; Aaron Falk
> <[email-masked]>; Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stackevo] [IAB] Stack Evolution Program meeting in
> Yokohama: minutes
>
>  
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> So what makes IoT different such that you call it out in the
> headline?  Why do you think there is room for success here, where even
> in the considerably more constrained world of routing it took us 30
> years to even begin to get a handle on this (and arguably we have not)?
>
> Eliot
>
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     *Cc:* Stackevo <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>; IAB
>     IAB <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>         Hi, Brian,
>
>          
>
>         On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Brian Trammell
>         <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>             Greetings, all,
>
>             One thing I've heard from a couple of different angles is
>             that there's a lack of visibility into what is going on in
>             the program. We need to do better reporting in general,
>             but as a concrete first step I'd like to post the minutes
>             of our meeting today to the program's page on iab.org
>             and announce this to (at least) the
>             [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>             list.
>
>             Please let me know if you have any objections, or
>             suggestions of other places to post the announcement of
>             the minutes.
>
>             Thanks, cheers,
>
>             Brian (program lead hat)
>
>          
>

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 16:41:11 +0100

Brian,
I note that the IAB has approved the draft of Dave Thaler on 
transitions. This draft does not quote Vint Cerf founding document of 
the Internet project (IEN 48 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt) which is at the core of my 
divergence with the approach on transition imposed on the IETF since 1986.

The two motivations for the ARPANET catenet Internetting project were:

- to permit the internal technology of a data network to be optimized 
for local operation but also permit these locally optimized nets to 
be readily interconnected into an organized catenet.

This has been achieved.

- to allow new networking technology to be introduced into the 
existing catenet while remaining functionally compatible with 
existing systems.  This allows for the phased
introduction of new and obsolescence of old networks without 
requiring a global simultaneous change.

This was blocked by the "status quo" strategy after RFC 923.

Today I understand that the "status quo" has been changed toward a 
"permissionless innovation" attitude. However, the draft does not 
seem to consider the most important part in a transition : live 
experimentation, testing and validation. ICANN ICP-3 gives a fairly 
decent description of how experimentation should be carried. This is 
what our RFC 6852 XLIBRE Global Community (http://xlibre.net) 
consider as as basic experimentation framework. However, it should 
probably consensually generalized (from beoing DNS specific to the 
whole catenet technologies) and updated in ordre to avoid any 
possible misunderstandings.

jfc

PS. Here is the ICANN ICP-3 Section 5. Experimentation:

5. Experimentation

Experimentation has always been an essential component of the 
Internet's vitality. Working within the system does not preclude 
experimentation, including experimentation with alternate DNS roots. 
But these activities must be done responsibly, in a manner that does 
not disrupt the ongoing activities of others and that is managed 
according to experimental protocols.

DNS experiments should be encouraged. Experiments, however, almost by 
definition have certain characteristics to avoid harm: (a) they are 
clearly labeled as experiments, (b) it is well understood that these 
experiments may end without establishing any prior claims on future 
directions, (c) they are appropriately coordinated within a 
community-based framework (such as <http://www.ietf.org>the IETF), 
and (d) the experimenters commit to adapt to consensus-based 
standards when they emerge through the ICANN and other 
community-based processes. This is very different from launching 
commercial enterprises that lull users into a sense of permanence 
without any sense of the foregoing obligations or contingencies.

Moreover, it is essential that experimental operations involving 
alternate DNS roots be conducted in a controlled manner, so that they 
do not adversely affect those who have not consented to participate 
in them. Given the design of the DNS, and particularly the 
intermediate-host and cache poisoning issues described in 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/unique-authoritative-root-2012-02-25-en#1>Section 
1 above, special care must be taken to insulate the DNS from the 
alternate root's effects. For example, alternate roots are commonly 
operated by large organizations within their private networks without 
harmful effects, since care is taken to prevent the flow of the 
alternate resource records onto the public Internet.

It should be noted that the original design of the DNS provides a 
facility for future extensions that accommodates the possibility of 
safely deploying multiple roots on the public Internet for 
experimental and other purposes. As noted in 
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt>RFC 1034, the DNS includes 
a "class" tag on each resource record, which allows resource records 
of different classes to be distinguished even though they are 
commingled on the public Internet. For resource records within the 
authoritative root-server system, this class tag is set to "IN"; 
other values have been standardized for particular uses, including 
255 possible values designated for "private use" that are 
particularly suited to 
experimentation.<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/unique-authoritative-root-2012-02-25-en#fn10>10

As described in a recent proposal within the 
IETF,<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/unique-authoritative-root-2012-02-25-en#fn11>11 
this "class" facility allows an alternate DNS namespace to be 
operated from different root servers in a manner that does not 
interfere with the stable operation of the existing authoritative 
root-server system. To take advantage of this facility, it should be 
noted, requires the use of client or applications software developed 
for the alternate namespace (presumably deployed after responsible 
testing), rather than the existing software that has been developed 
to interoperate with the authoritative root. Those who operate 
alternate roots for global commercial purposes, however, have not 
followed this course.

In an ever-evolving Internet, ultimately there may be better 
architectures for getting the job done where the need for a single, 
authoritative root will not be an issue. But that is not the case 
today. And the transition to such an architecture, should it emerge, 
would require community-based approaches. In the interim, responsible 
experimentation should be encouraged, but it should not be done in a 
manner that affects those who do not consent after being informed of 
the character of the experiment.

At 02:06 03/11/2015, Brian Trammell wrote:
>there's a lack of visibility into what is going on in the program. 
>We need to do better reporting in general, but as a concrete first 
>step I'd like to post the minutes of our meeting today to the 
>program's page on iab.org, and announce this to (at least) the 
>[email-masked] list.
>
>The level of detail I'm going for here is that of the IAB minutes 
>(for program members not on the IAB and who don't regularly browse 
>IAB minutes for fun, see e.g. 
>https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2015/), perhaps 
>slightly (but not much) more. The minutes will be available to the 
>Please let me know if you have any objections, or suggestions of 
>other places to post the announcement of the minutes.
>
>Thanks, cheers,
>
>Brian (program lead hat)
>