Re: Draft notes from IETF-64 - For comment.

["Marie-Jose Montpetit" <mariejose.montpetit@verizon.net>]

Deadline for AR is March 2006 not March 2007.

My question to the security was is there was more communities who could use
the Security framework and not just ULE.

/mjm
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gorry Fairhurst" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: <ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 12:55 PM
Subject: Draft notes from IETF-64 - For comment.


> I enclose a copy of the draft notes from the ipdvb WG meeting at IETF-64.
> The notes were taken by Martin, with contributions from a few others and
the
> audio record.
>
> Please check for accuracy. If you have any comments or queries, please do
> send to me and/or the list!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gorry Fairhurst.
> (ipdvb WG Chair)
>
> ----
>
>  Minutes of the IP over Digital Video Broadcast WG (IPDVB)
> ===========================================================
> TUESDAY, 13:00-15:00 November 8, 2005
> Chair: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
> WG Note-taker: Martin Stiemerling <stiemerling@netlab.nec.de>
>
>
> 1. Agenda
> ---------
> (WG Chair, Gorry Fairhurst)
>
> This was the 5th meeting of the IPDVB WG at the IETF. The meeting was
> chaired by Gorry Fairhurst. The proposed agenda was accepted. An
> additional presentation by Axel Jahn on IP over DVBS.2 had been
> received, which the WG Chair would present.
>
>
> 2. Document Status
> ------------------
> (WG Chair, Gorry Fairhurst)
>
> Active WG Drafts:
>     draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-06.txt (Proposed Standard)
>         RFC Editor queue in EDIT IANA.
>     draft-ietf-ipdvb-arch-04.txt (Informational)
>         RFC Editor's queue in Auth48 call.
>     draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-01.txt
>         Active WG draft.
>
> Protocol entries for ULE has been created in registries at:
>   - ISO/SMPTE
>   - ATSC
>   - IANA Next-Header registry
>
> These registry assignments are now permanent.
>
> Other related documents Individual Drafts for consideration by WG:
>     draft-stiemerling-ipdvb-config-01.txt
>     draft-cruickshank-ipdvb-sec-req-00.txt
>     draft-cruickshank-ipdvb-sec-00.txt
>     draft-cantillo-ipdvb-s2encaps-01.txt
>
> There had been a re-charter of the WG Charter milestones, after
> the last IETF meeting. A new item added on ULE security requirements.
> The new milestones are progressing well and all completed on time.
>
>
> 3. Presentation on IP Address Resolution
> ----------------------------------------
> (draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-01.txt) Marie-Jose Montpetit
>
> Marie-Jose presented an overview of the document structure and noted
> that this must work in all MPEG-2 networks: address resolution should
> be technology agnostic. The I-D was to: Define terminology, lead to
> a common understanding, review implementation scenarios. Address
> resolution should also be considered above IP and the goal is how
> to make the implementation more IP friendly.
>
> The I-D is applicable to whatever MPEG-2 transmission is used
> (satellite, cable, handheld, ...) and presents methods to ensure AR
> is network-aware / technology agnostic (mobility of solutions) and
> speaks about integration into multiple signaling paradigms: DVB-SI
> and IMS/SIP; This can resolve other parameters: encapsulation method,
> MTU, policy/priority/QoS, security, packing threshold.
>
> The current revision -01 is now in good shape. Updates include:
>   - Added description of use of SI.
>   - Various things based-on discussion on the list.
>   - Fixes to document format.
> She presented the intended work for I-D rev. -02:
>  - Investigate integration into other new trends:
>     SIPPING, ipconfig, autoconf;
>  - Closer integration into other standards bodies;
>  - Inputs are requested from the WG on mobility, DVB-H, IMS;
>  - Also: cable/broadcast strategies usage, IP streaming over MPEG-2.
>
> Gorry Fairhurst: There are a lot of things that could be added.
> How long  until the I-D is ready for a WGLC?
> Marie-Jose Montpetit: This is some kind of shopping list, we propose
> to cycle it one or two more times, and get comments from the list.
> The I-D should be ready by early next year.
> Gorry Fairhurst: The milestone is March 2007.
> Marie-Jose Montpetit: Seems OK.
> Gorry Fairhurst: I encourages people to read next draft, and offer
> contributions where able.
>
>
> 4. Presentation on IP Address Configuration
> -------------------------------------------
> (draft-stiemerling-ipdvb-config-02) Martin Stiemerling
>
> There has been progress, the I-D has been reorganised, and is now
> ready for comments from the WG. Open issues include the configuration
> parameters, sets of configuration items, and how to reconfigure?
> The I-D still needs to differentiate between the configuration roles
> of the MPEG-2/DVB operator and IP operator. There is no current
> conclusion on whether new protocols are needed?
>
> Marie-Jose Montpetit: The I-D speaks about MPEG-2/DVB and IP operators.
> What about content provider configuration?
> Martin Stiemerling: That's a good question.
> It should enter the picture somewhere.
> Marie-Jose Montpetit: All these people have configuration.
> Martin Stiemerling: If we talk about IP-level questions, then I am
> not sure they are involved, if this is at the service-level, then
> there is configuration.
>
> Gorry Fairhurst: Does anyone have NDP experience in very flat networks
> - i.e. scalability to large numbers of systems?
> Marie-Jose Montpetit: The Secure Neighbor Discovery WG (send) has
> work on scaling, captured in an RFC. This is important to the AR I-D.
> Martin Stiemerling: I will look into this point.
>
> Gorry Fairhurst: Is the I-D heading towards an Informational RFC.
> Should the outcome be part of another I-D?
> Martin Stiemerling: There can be recommendations on DHCP, NDP, arp, etc.
> Gorry Fairhurst: This seems to fall within the Chartered item on
> Address Resolution.  We may finally need to consider whether this I-D
> should be combined with the AR draft.  For now, I am very happy to see
> the I-D proceed, and would like to see contributions.
>
>
> 5. Presentation Security Requirements
> -------------------------------------
> (draft-cruickshank-ipdvb-sec-req-00) Sunil Iyengar
>
> A security I-D had been presented at IETF-63 (in Paris). The
> proposed L2 security method is based on an analysis of ULE. It had
> received many good comments at the previous meeting, but also some
> important questions from the IETF Security Area. This new I-D
> responds to these comments. It mainly describes threats and security
> requirements. The L2 security association is between an Encapsulation
> Gateway and the Receiver.
>
> A number of issues have been brought up on the mailing list. The
> authors are reading these and intend to work through them on the
> mailing list after the IETF meeting. The intention is to revise the
> document in December 2005, collect more feedback, and finally ask
> the WG to adopt it against the new Milestone.
>
> Martin Stiemerling: The document is about ULE security.
> Why is NAT in the L2 security document?
> Sunil Iyengar: ULE security does not impact NAT functions, but we
> need to ensure the security framework is compatible with NAT functions.
> Martin Stiemerling: On some links, there is no NAT.
> Gorry Fairhurst: I requested a work-item on ULE security requirements.
> Should it have been on IP security requirements when using DVB/MPEG?
> If so I may have requested the wrong name for the Milestone, we should
> see how the I-D develops and look at the current Milestone.
> Gorry Fairhurst: So, the NAT issue is more of an IPsec issue, than a
> ULE issue?
> Sunil Iyengar: Yes, just that.
> Martin Stiemerling: So the security requirements go beyond just ULE?
> Gorry Fairhurst: Yes. Specifically we were asked to talk about IPsec,
> bulk link encryption. Link encryption. This was requested at IETF-63.
> Martin Stiemerling: This needs to be explained in the title or elsewhere.
>
> Marie-Jose Montpetit: The authors appear to come from the satellite
> community. There are other MPEG-2 networks that could use ULE.
> Are there plans to extend the involved folks beyond satellite?
> Sunil Iyengar: Yes, it would be helpful. If you have expertise
> or requirements, please do contact us, we're looking for contributions.
> Marie-Jose Montpetit: A title change to MPEG/DVB security would help,
> and help encourage more contributions.
> Gorry Fairhurst: I'd like to see the scope as what needs to be done
> to make the Internet security service secure, and what needs to be
> done below the Internet layer to make this happen.
>
> Gorry Fairhurst: There was discussion on L2 signaling on the list
> (originally looking at AR). Is this topic ready to be summarised?
> Sunil Iyengar: Yes, I will send something to the list tomorrow,
> and will talk about what authentication means in this context.
>
>
> 6. Presentation Security Method
> -------------------------------
> (draft-cruickshank-ipdvb-sec-00) Sunil Iyengar
>
> This was the same I-D that had been presented at IETF-63. The authors
> will keep this draft alive while the requirements I-D matures, and
> update it.  There will a new version -01 at the end of January 2006.
>
>
> 7. DVB-S.2 Framework
> --------------------
> (WG Chair, Gorry Fairhurst)
>
> Gorry presented one slide showing the position of the new DVB-S.2
> physical-layer within the protocol stack. This was expected to
> become a widely deployed standard and support existing ULE, MPE, etc
> via a transport stream interface. There was also a direct mapping
> of IP packets into the physical layer, known as the Generic Stream.
> This was under study in DVB-GBS, and was the topic for the next few
> presentations. There is an opportunity here to ensure that the two
> modes of DVB-S.2 have a common IP interface (e.g. based on ULE).
>
>
> 7.1 DVB-S2 Encapsulation ­ GBS Activities
> -----------------------------------------
> (prepared by Axel Jahn, presented by Gorry Fairhurst)
>
> Axel was responsible for S.2 IP Encapsulation work within DVB-GBS.
> The presentation described how DVB-GBS intends to define S.2
> encapsulation requirements and evaluation criteria (see slides).
>
> The IP/S.2 group will send a copy of their document to the ipdvb
> mailing list. The group is asking for potential encapsulation methods.
> Next year, the comparison and evaluation would start. Many ipdvb WG
> members are already participating in this process, others are welcome
> via a DVB member.
>
>
> 7.2 Requirements for IP over DVB-S.2
> ------------------------------------
> (draft-cantillo-ipdvb-s2encaps-01) Juan Cantillo
>
> Juan presented a framework for IP encapsulation using Generic Streams.
> This version of the I-D has been completely rewritten, based on
> comments on and off the list. He presented a list of pending issues
> concerning the I-D. The next step is to propose this as a WG item.
> This is a hot topic, but does the WG scope cover DVB-S.2?
>
>
> Martin Stiemerling: What is the fragmentation problem?
> Juan Cantillo: ULE fragments SNDUs in MPEG-2, in S.2 BBframes have
> no defined method for flexible fragmentation.
> Martin Stiemerling: We already have ULE, is fragmentation out of scope?
> Gorry Fairhurst: I'm not sure this is the same problem, let's take
> questions about scope later.
>
> Josef Schmidbar: Are there any plans to utilize the different
> modulation options and link these to the IP QoS?
> Juan Cantillo: I am not aware of any work yet, most current systems
> also use MPEG-2 at constant rate. QoS could be added to the I-D.
> The authors would welcome ideas and text for this.
> Mark Watson:  What is the relation between physical layer FEC and
> packet-level FEC? The physical layer is not necessarily the best place
> to expend effort to ensure overall reliability. Can the whole stack
> be optimised?
> Juan Cantillo: We are hopeful about driving ideas on cross-layer
> optimizations between L2 and L3. This topic needs to explored, and has
> many implications on IP. We are not yet talking about application
> optimisation, this is in the longer term.
> Gorry Fairhurst: You are bound to consider about applications/transport
> if you need to understand the loss/error requirements of specific flows.
> acket FEC, is now an important IETF Transport Area topic, with
> documents in AVT and RMT WGs, and a BoF this IETF (FECFrame). This WG
> is not the only place in the IETF to address this topic.
> Juan Cantillo: There are potential some tools in S.2, that we can use
> for example the ISI field.
>
> Gorry Fairhurst (WG Chair): The Charter defines what the WG should
> do. Any change needs to be discussed with our Area Director (and
> the IESG). Anyway, the WG should not duplicate what is done in another
> organisation. Axel's contribution seems to clarify things. It seems
> to methat the I-D is more focussed on IP and there is no overlap.
> This may compliment work in DVB-GBS by bringing Internet experience.
>
> How many had read draft-cantillo-ipdvb-s2encaps-01?
> (6 people had read the document)
>
> How many people think the WG has expertise to work on this topic?
> (6 people had read the document)
>
> The authors should continue to revise this I-D, and the WG should
> pursue this topic on the mailing list. The protocol specification
> is not a valid WG item: It would therefore be premature to propose
> any Milestone in this space within the ipdvb WG.
>
>
> 8. ULE Implementation Status
> ----------------------------
> (WG Chair, Gorry Fairhurst)
>
> Gorry presented a list of known implementations. Once ULE is
> published as an RFC, implementors should be encouraged to bring their
> code up to the proposed standard.  There is another new implementor
> working on trial open source for a ULE Gateway. No details were
> available yet, but we should expect an announcement in a few months,
> this will complement the existing open-source Receiver.  He asked if
> there were any news  from other implementors?
>
> Josef Schmidbar: University of Salzburg had contributed to the Linux
> ULE release (now a standard feature of the kernel), and had recently
> discovered a small bug. The treatment of the D-bit (destination NPA/MAC
> address suppressed) was wrong when D=0 (specified MAC/NPA address) and
> a multicast L2 address was used. This could lead to unexpected packet
> loss for IPv4/IPv6 multicast.
> Gorry Fairhurst: Was this implementation going to be fixed?
> Gorry Fairhurst: Yes, and it would be uploaded to the Linux
> distribution.
>
>
> 27 people were in the meeting room, and some also participated via
> jabber/audio. The session ended at 2:30pm.
>
>
>
>
>