What happened at IETF98 in Chicago, March 26-31?

Expecting an usual, not particular special IETF meeting, the 98th meeting two weeks ago in Chicago was actually quite exciting, in a positive sense. A lot of work, relevant to the architecture as well as measurement objectives of the MAMI project, made good progress and fostered interesting, still on-going discussions.

The meeting started off with the IP Performanec Metrics (IPPM) session Monday morning. A document on In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) proposing a data model for telemetry and measurement data that can be applied to different (tunneling) protocols was discussed and received positive feedback from the group. This work is highly relevant to MAMI given measurement is one of the basic use cases for the Middlebox Cooperation protocol (MCP).

In the afternoon, there were several talks on middlebox benefits, state management, and privacy in the tsv-area meeting. Dave Dolsen presented draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits and Brian Trammel (remotely) presented draft-trammell-plus-statefulness. Both drafts created quite some interest as well as discussion – any information that is exposed by an endpoint must first demonstrate benefits when consumed by the network.

Tuesday morning the IRTF Measurement and Analysis for Protocols (maprg) had a long slot with a number of presentations on security and privacy relevant topics. maprg usually sends out a Call for Contributions a couple of weeks ahead of the meeting. This time the group had a large number of very interesting submissions and could finally accept only about half of them to fit in the 2.5h slot. The talks presented data on DSCP, ECN, IPv6, Let’sEncrypt, broadcasted hostnames, weak keys in HTTPS, and censorship detected by the OONI project.

In the last session on Tuesdays Tommy Pauly presented Post Sockets in the Transport Services (taps) working group which is common work with the MAMI project updated after an one day workshop held in Feburary in Zürich.

Thursday started with the QUIC meeting were Mirja Kühlewind presented two drafts on Applicability and Managability as well as a proposal by Brian Trammell to add a packet number echo to the public QUIC header for RTT measurements. The draft received positive feedback to address one of the charter milestones and adoption will be confirmed on the mailing list. The proposal to add a packet number echo was lively discussed without reaching consensus yet. There was broad support for this addition but there were also privacy concerns that needs further discussion; similar to all information that will be exposed for network use in the header. QUIC will hold an interim meeting on June 6-8 in Paris.

Later that day, the Multipath TCP working group discussed the use of MPTCP for bandwidth aggregation in network scenarios where one low bandwidth fixed line link (DSL) is bonded with a high speed mobile link (LTE). Several approaches to address this use case have been proposed but there was so far no real consensus to move any of them forward. This time the discussion was led by the chairs attempting to compare the different proposals on a high level allowing the group to move forward. While there were also quite some people who indicated that they think this work should not be taken up by the IETF at all, a larger group of people were interested in this work and there was a clear indication for one of the proposals which is a solution that only requires a small addition to the SYN payload on the bonding link. The MAMI project is also focusing on this use case, using the MCP to signal preferences of the endhost to the bonding boxes in the network.

Thursday afternoon finally also the new MAMI T-shirts arrived (see photo above). Unfortunatly, they came only in to action during the bits-and-bytes and Friday morning that is traditionally rather quite. However, the next event is comig and the next IETF is already on the horizon in July in Prague! See you there! Good bye, Chicago!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply