[03:00:08] zulipbot joins the room
[04:22:31] alex-meetecho joins the room
[04:49:25] Meetecho joins the room
[04:51:02] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[04:51:16] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[04:51:22] Ken McKeever joins the room
[04:51:32] Scott Burleigh joins the room
[04:51:33] Ronny Bull joins the room
[04:52:07] Robert Moskowitz joins the room
[04:52:17] Magnus Westerlund joins the room
[04:52:43] Yun Chung joins the room
[04:53:00] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[04:53:12] Edward Birrane joins the room
[04:53:23] Adam Wiethuechter joins the room
[04:53:25] Robert Moskowitz_755 joins the room
[04:53:45] Yun Chung leaves the room
[04:53:53] Yun Chung joins the room
[04:54:23] Fred Templin joins the room
[04:54:31] Brian Sipos joins the room
[04:55:40] Atsushi Tagami joins the room
[04:56:20] Jasdip Singh joins the room
[04:56:25] englishm joins the room
[04:57:46] Brenda Lyons joins the room
[04:57:46] Sarah Heiner joins the room
[04:57:56] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl joins the room
[04:57:58] Magnus Westerlund too joins the room
[04:58:48] Chunshan Xiong joins the room
[04:59:06] Ronald in 't Velt joins the room
[04:59:26] Stuart Card joins the room
[04:59:40] Marc Blanchet joins the room
[04:59:55] Rick Taylor joins the room
[05:00:27] <Adam Wiethuechter> 1, 2 ,3 :)
[05:01:13] David Edell joins the room
[05:01:23] Lucien Loiseau joins the room
[05:01:49] Robert Moskowitz_755 leaves the room
[05:01:54] Robert Moskowitz_160 joins the room
[05:02:29] Huanan Chen joins the room
[05:02:42] Robert Moskowitz_160 leaves the room
[05:02:47] Eve Schooler joins the room
[05:02:48] Robert Moskowitz_231 joins the room
[05:02:54] Mike English joins the room
[05:03:12] <Lucien Loiseau> hi everyone
[05:04:18] englishm leaves the room
[05:05:31] Eve Schooler leaves the room
[05:05:38] Eve Schooler joins the room
[05:06:36] Robert Moskowitz_231 leaves the room
[05:07:27] Eve Schooler leaves the room
[05:07:28] Robert Moskowitz_967 joins the room
[05:08:43] Robert Moskowitz_967 leaves the room
[05:09:24] Will Hawkins joins the room
[05:11:32] englishm joins the room
[05:11:43] Robert Moskowitz_933 joins the room
[05:14:02] Robert Moskowitz_933 leaves the room
[05:14:07] Robert Moskowitz_346 joins the room
[05:14:32] <Ronald in 't Velt> +1 to thanking Marc Blanchet!
[05:16:36] <Marc Blanchet> Thanks Ronald.
[05:17:08] <Marc Blanchet> I know I was the one against. I still stand on my opinion, but I'm fine with the direction going forward.
[05:17:36] <Magnus Westerlund too> The text is this:
   The bundle protocol security architecture and the available security    services are specified in an accompanying document, the Bundle    Security Protocol (BPsec) specification [BPSEC].  Whenever Bundle    Protocol security services (as opposed to the security services    provided by overlying application protocols or underlying    convergence-layer protocols) are required, those services SHALL be    provided by BPsec rather than by some other mechanism with the same    or similar scope.
Bundle Protocol Agent (BPA) which sources, cryptographically    verifies, and/or accepts a bundle MUST implement support for BPsec.    Use of BPsec for a particular Bundle Protocol session is optional.
[05:22:04] Yuexia Fu joins the room
[05:24:35] <Stuart Card> Resources are finite so drops will happen somehow. This seems a perfectly reasonable way to decide which bundles to drop, but should not be mandated as the only way?
[05:25:50] <Stuart Card> E.g. maybe I am holding a huge bundle, which if dropped, will allow many others to live on.
[05:26:22] Robert Moskowitz_346 leaves the room
[05:26:27] Robert Moskowitz_819 joins the room
[05:26:55] Loren McIntyre joins the room
[05:29:17] Robert Moskowitz_819 leaves the room
[05:29:30] <Edward Birrane> I interpreted Scott's point that if a bundle is flagged as needing to be deleted, a BPA can make that deletion happen by overriding the lifetime. So, if we need to remove a large bundle to allow others to live on, the large bundle would be removed by having its lifetime overridden.
[05:29:34] Robert Moskowitz_559 joins the room
[05:30:24] Robert Moskowitz_559 leaves the room
[05:30:27] Robert Moskowitz_823 joins the room
[05:31:05] <Will Hawkins> was there a discussion of a variable denomination scheme?
[05:31:41] Benjamin Kaduk joins the room
[05:31:54] <Stuart Card> I thought he meant that a local bundle lifetime limit could be used as a means of selecting which to drop, even if their internally specified lifetimes had not expired. I guess we should ask for clarification?
[05:32:29] <Will Hawkins> too nervous to ask
[05:32:52] Yuexia Fu leaves the room
[05:33:00] <Rick Taylor> Thanks Adam, I should have been watching the chat... you're now the scribe ;)
[05:33:09] <Edward Birrane> From BPBis: If the asserted lifetime for a received bundle is so lengthy that
   retention of the bundle until its expiration time might degrade
   operation of the node at which the bundle is received, or if the
   bundle protocol agent of that node determines that the bundle must
   be deleted in order to prevent network performance degradation
   (e.g., the bundle appears to be part of a denial-of-service attack),
   then that bundle protocol agent MAY impose a temporary overriding
   lifetime of shorter duration;
[05:33:28] <Adam Wiethuechter> i am doing note taking already lol
[05:33:30] <Adam Wiethuechter> but okay haha
[05:33:37] Robert Moskowitz_823 leaves the room
[05:33:42] <Rick Taylor> Good man
[05:33:43] Robert Moskowitz_329 joins the room
[05:33:49] <Will Hawkins> Thank you. That makes perfect sense. I am sorry for wasting everyone's time.
[05:33:50] <Edward Birrane> I think the key part is "or if the bundle protocol agent of that node determines that the bundle must be deleted in order..."    which opens this mechanism up to other use cases.
[05:34:06] <Edward Birrane> Not a waste at all!
[05:34:14] <Will Hawkins> thank you :-)
[05:34:29] <Will Hawkins> and I agree with the resolution (pun intended)
[05:34:35] <Edward Birrane> :)
[05:35:56] <Adam Wiethuechter> Not a problem :)
[05:38:19] <Stuart Card> +1 that
[05:40:04] <Marc Blanchet> On extensions mandatory to implement: the issue is that we have a very disconnected network protocol, therefore we can't have a negotiation protocol between the two endpoints to negotiate the extensions and capabilities. Therefore, we may need to make extensions mandatory to implement. But that could create an issue in the future as new extensions could then require implementations to become unconformant right away.
[05:40:26] Will Hawkins leaves the room
[05:40:58] Atsushi Tagami leaves the room
[05:41:05] Atsushi Tagami joins the room
[05:41:26] <Rick Taylor> Do you want to say that at the mic Marc?
[05:41:41] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Right, in some sense this moment, when we define the base spec itself,
is the only chance to make implementation of a given extension block
mandatory, in a safe way.
[05:42:49] <Stuart Card> It may take the BP agent orbiting Alpha Centauri a while to learn about the newly standardized extension.
[05:43:19] <Rick Taylor> +1 Stuart
[05:43:37] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> In TLS we have the "extension" terminology as just "arbitrary
container for type/length/value information", but of course BP is not
TLS
[05:44:20] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> In particular in TLS 1.3 there are some "extensions" that you
literally must have present in order for the protocol to work at all.
[05:45:19] <Ronald in 't Velt> Adam, no! "Extension Block" is well-known terminology since DTN RG days.
[05:45:54] <Stuart Card> Do we mean essentially the same thing as is meant by IPv6 extension headers?
[05:46:23] <Marc Blanchet> pretty similar actually
[05:46:28] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> pretty similar, yes
[05:46:47] Chunshan Xiong leaves the room
[05:47:24] <Magnus Westerlund too> Except that Ipv6 extension header have had some much discussion that their usage and implementation is litigated back and forth. I hope we can avoid this for BPv7
[05:47:36] <Marc Blanchet> Scott, I would suggest something to add to your idea: Future extensions may not be mandatory.
[05:48:46] <Edward Birrane> +1 Marc
[05:49:01] Robert Moskowitz_329 leaves the room
[05:49:07] Robert Moskowitz_987 joins the room
[05:49:14] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Marc is that in the sense of "some future extensions might not have
the property of being mandatory" or "future extensions are not
permitted to be mandatory"?
[05:49:31] <Marc Blanchet> ""some future extensions might not have the property of being mandatory"
[05:49:41] <Marc Blanchet> (to implement)
[05:50:19] Brenda Lyons leaves the room
[05:50:22] Brenda Lyons joins the room
[05:50:33] <Rick Taylor> I must admit I would prefer another term to descriminate between "optional blocks" and new blocks introduced by an extension
[05:50:43] <Marc Blanchet> if a new extension is defined in the future, then I see that the wg at that time may decide whether it is mandatory to implement or not, and if mandatory then decide what to do with the "transition".
[05:52:08] <Marc Blanchet> but the goal of the additional text was to make sure that the future is not tied to "all future extensions must be mandatory to implement". want to avoid that understanding.
[05:52:13] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> +1 thank you Ran
[05:53:55] <Scott Burleigh> +1 more - thanks for your help, Ran.
[05:55:15] Robert Moskowitz_987 leaves the room
[05:55:21] Robert Moskowitz_622 joins the room
[06:01:27] <Robert Moskowitz> sometimes IANA is trying to stop usign some 'prior art'.  BTDT
[06:01:45] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Some protocols even use a mix of negative and positive values for
their most important things, to maximize the usage of the shortest
encoding
[06:08:46] Lucien Loiseau leaves the room
[06:09:33] Xingjian He joins the room
[06:11:52] Robert Moskowitz_622 leaves the room
[06:12:06] Robert Moskowitz_468 joins the room
[06:13:09] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Can I request that we move TCPCLv4 before COSE?
[06:13:22] <Rick Taylor> Okay Ben
[06:13:27] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Thanks
[06:13:29] <Rick Taylor> We moved it for you
[06:13:41] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> And it is much appreciated
[06:15:56] Kim, Y joins the room
[06:16:06] Kim, Y leaves the room
[06:17:04] <Adam Wiethuechter> Rick looks like a deer in headlights when he cant find slides
[06:17:38] Robert Moskowitz_468 leaves the room
[06:17:41] Robert Moskowitz_367 joins the room
[06:17:46] <Magnus Westerlund too> To be clear BPSec has no active discussed, but security context are mandatory to support per BPSec. Thus I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc is a normative reference and BPSec can't be published prior to that document becoming available.
[06:19:04] <Magnus Westerlund too> discussed/discusses
[06:19:35] <Rick Taylor> Understood - so BPSec will wait in/around IESG until Interop is ready, yes?
[06:20:11] <Magnus Westerlund too> No, in missref state in RFC-editor queue as intended to have it approved as soon as possible.
[06:20:25] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> It could in theory wait around at the RFC Editor, though if some AD
decides that they agree strongly with Mirja that point might get
entered into a current discuss ballot as opposed to her expired one
[06:20:33] Robert Moskowitz_367 leaves the room
[06:20:45] Robert Moskowitz_352 joins the room
[06:21:46] Loren McIntyre leaves the room
[06:22:46] Xingjian He leaves the room
[06:23:13] <Rick Taylor> So "MUST implement, MAY use" seems to be such a common pattern in drafts, does anyone know of an RFC that defines this behaviour canonically?
[06:24:33] <Magnus Westerlund too> But, the aspect that Mirja had a discuss on was resolved in the document by making draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc mandatory. Per the Section 9.1 text:    
To ensure interoperability among various implementations, all BPSec implementations MUST support at least the current IETF standards-track mandatory security context(s).  As of this writing, that BCP    mandatory security context is specified in    [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc], but the mandatory security context(s) might change over time in accordance with usual IETF processes.
[06:25:08] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Ah, right.  Sorry for misremembering.
[06:25:24] Robert Moskowitz_352 leaves the room
[06:25:29] Robert Moskowitz_616 joins the room
[06:26:00] Robert Moskowitz_616 leaves the room
[06:26:10] Robert Moskowitz_431 joins the room
[06:28:48] <Magnus Westerlund too> Rick, the version field is in the contact header that I believe to be same between versions. Thus, you can send the contact header and say I am ver=6.
[06:29:12] <Rick Taylor> Good point Magnus - I forgot the version field
[06:33:53] Robert Moskowitz_431 leaves the room
[06:33:58] Robert Moskowitz_469 joins the room
[06:40:12] Will Hawkins joins the room
[06:41:27] Atsushi Tagami leaves the room
[06:41:34] Atsushi Tagami joins the room
[06:42:52] Benjamin Kaduk leaves the room
[06:46:22] Robert Moskowitz_469 leaves the room
[06:46:25] Robert Moskowitz_862 joins the room
[06:47:25] Huanan Chen leaves the room
[06:50:17] <Adam Wiethuechter> +1 to info doc on everything just presented!
[06:50:31] <Adam Wiethuechter> good work Sarah
[06:51:17] <Sarah Heiner> Thank you!
[06:52:00] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Oops, I left the room already so lost my chance to wait for a
non-disruptive opportunity to note that, FWIW, "PKIX" is usually
pronounced more like "pee KICKS", with very little space between
phonemes.
[06:52:27] <Rick Taylor> "pee KICKS" just sounds painful...
[06:54:59] Robert Moskowitz_862 leaves the room
[06:55:08] Robert Moskowitz_261 joins the room
[06:57:16] Brenda Lyons leaves the room
[06:58:12] Robert Moskowitz_261 leaves the room
[06:58:18] Robert Moskowitz_253 joins the room
[06:59:01] Fred Templin leaves the room
[07:00:10] Will Hawkins leaves the room
[07:01:02] <Robert Moskowitz> That is why I have always seen it shown as "P Kicks".  
[07:01:25] Robert Moskowitz_253 leaves the room
[07:01:30] Robert Moskowitz_811 joins the room
[07:01:40] Jasdip Singh leaves the room
[07:02:19] Jasdip Singh joins the room
[07:02:19] Jasdip Singh leaves the room
[07:02:36] Jasdip Singh joins the room
[07:03:48] Robert Moskowitz_811 leaves the room
[07:03:54] Robert Moskowitz_903 joins the room
[07:07:13] Sarah Heiner leaves the room
[07:07:19] Sarah Heiner joins the room
[07:07:32] Robert Moskowitz leaves the room
[07:07:47] Robert Moskowitz_903 leaves the room
[07:08:23] Jasdip Singh leaves the room
[07:08:25] Magnus Westerlund leaves the room
[07:08:28] Yun Chung leaves the room
[07:08:31] Ronny Bull leaves the room
[07:08:31] Rick Taylor leaves the room
[07:08:35] Scott Burleigh leaves the room
[07:08:35] Ken McKeever leaves the room
[07:08:36] Atsushi Tagami leaves the room
[07:08:37] Sarah Heiner leaves the room
[07:08:39] Adam Wiethuechter leaves the room
[07:08:42] Stuart Card leaves the room
[07:08:42] Edward Birrane leaves the room
[07:08:47] David Edell leaves the room
[07:09:06] Meetecho leaves the room
[07:09:19] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[07:09:42] Brian Sipos leaves the room
[07:09:47] Mike English leaves the room
[07:09:47] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[07:09:47] Ronald in 't Velt leaves the room
[07:09:47] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[07:09:47] Marc Blanchet leaves the room
[07:15:47] alex-meetecho leaves the room
[07:17:39] Magnus Westerlund too leaves the room
[10:19:07] englishm joins the room
[10:20:09] englishm leaves the room
[10:24:20] englishm joins the room
[10:25:04] englishm leaves the room
[10:28:51] englishm joins the room
[10:29:51] englishm leaves the room
[22:54:13] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl leaves the room