Networked Appliances Lunch BoF – Meeting Notes

IETF 49, 12/12/00

 

1.         Attendees

 

Name

Affiliation

E-mail

1.      Arango, Mauricio

Sun

Mauricio.Arango@sun.com

2.      Blatherwick, Peter

Nortel

blather@nortelnetworks.com

3.      Bogdanovic, Dean

MCK Communications

dean_bogdanovic@mck.com

4.      Bounet, Chris

Nokia Research

christophe.bounet@nokia.com

5.      Conley, Patrick J.

Verisign

pconley@verisign.com

6.      Curcio, Igor

Nokia Mobile Phones

igor.curcio@nokia.com

7.      Daigle, Leslie

Thinking Cat

leslie@thinkingcat.com

8.      Fleming, Kris

Intel

kris.d.fleming@intel.com

9.      Guruprasad, V.

IBM

prasad@watson.ibm.com

10.  Jarvis, Brian

Internap

bjarvis@internap.com

11.  Johnston, Alan

Worldcom

alan.johnston@wcom.com

12.  Khurana, Sumit

Telcordia Technologies

sumit@research.telcordia.com

13.  Kutschen, Dirk

University of Bremen

dku@tzi.org

14.  Li, Qiong

Philips

quionh.li@philips.com

15.  Lukas, Bob

Broadcom

blukas@broadcom.com

16.  Maeda, Toru

Canon

maeda.toru@canon.co.jp

17.  Mahy, Rohan

Cisco

rohan@cisco.com

18.  Ménard, François

Consultant

fmenard@fmmo.ca

19.  Montpetit, Marie-José

Nokia

Marie-Jose.Montpetit@nokia.com

20.  Moyer, Stanley M.

Telcordia Technologies

stanm@research.telcordia.com

21.  Ott, Jörg

University of Bremen

jo@tzi.de

22.  Rutkowski, Anthony M.

Network Solutions

trutkowski@netsol.com

23.  Sarikaya, Behcet

University of Aizu

sarikaya@u-aizu.ac.jp

24.  Shrader, David

Master Consultant

dshrader@master-consultant.com

25.  Sinnreich, Henry

MCI/Worldcom

Henry.Sinnreich@wcom.com

26.  Tomada, Ichiro

Toshiba R&R

tomoda@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

27.  Tsang, Simon

Telcordia Technologies

stsang@research.telcordia.com

28.  Van Valkenburg, Sander

Nokia

sander.van-valkenburg@nokia.com

29.  Zill, Brian

Microsoft

bzill@microsoft.com

 

2.         Agenda

 

  1. Introductions
  2. Discussion on possible Appliances BoF at IETF 50, March 2001

-         Do we need to have a BoF/WG on this topic in IETF?

-         Relationship to Zeroconf WG?

-         Relationship to SIP WG?

-         What do we need to do to make it happen?

-         Charter for the WG

-         Include SIP work? 

-         Additional work items not previously considered?

  1. Outstanding technical issues

-         Naming and Addressing

-         Self/Auto-configuration

-         Discovery and Registration

-         Security

-         Additional Requirements

  1. Decide next steps

-         Agree on action items

-         Choose volunteers

 

3.         Issues Highlighted At The Meeting

 

1.  Scope of Proposed BoF

-         The current working architecture (as outlined in the current Internet Drafts) is centred around the home network.  It was proposed to broaden the working architecture and discussions beyond the home domains.  Examples include SOHO and wireless.

-         It was suggested that in order to properly scope the Networked Appliances BoF, it would be necessary to properly define the meaning of ‘appliance’ and ‘domain’ in the context of the BoF.  A consensus was reached on this point.

 

2.  Other relevant WGs

-         Numerous IETF WGs were mentioned as potential inputs and outlets for Networked Appliances work.  These include: MMUSIC, Geospatial, Policy, Media Streaming.

-         It was suggested that the area of Networked Appliances will touch upon many of the current WGs within the IETF.  However, it was also noted that Networked Appliances poses new and additional challenges which are not wholly covered by these WGs.

 

3.  Naming, Addressing, Domains

-         Naming and addressing were amongst the most widely discussed issues.  It was noted that there are numerous schemes which may have to be considered:  Internet, local-area network, virtual private network, wireless, non-IP (e.g. X.10, Home PNA, VHN etc.).   Because this could potentially make the study of Networked Appliances unwieldy and unmanageable, the importance of properly scoping and defining the BoF charter was noted.

-         The use of abstract naming and addressing schemes (e.g. the SIP addressing scheme) was discussed as being potentially useful for Networked Appliances.

-         The concept of the “realm” was discussed.  A realm is an abstract domain which relates to a user or service rather than a physical domain or network.

 

4.  Security

-         A consensus was reached on the importance of security.

-         It was noted that the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) provides several security features.

-         The use of IPSec was discussed for Networked Appliances.

-         The ability to securely ‘open’ paths through firewalls and NATs was noted as an issue for Networked Appliances.

 

5.  Suggested Ways Forward

-         One suggestion was made to continue the work as an “Experimental” RFC.  Another suggestion was to encapsulate the ideas in a “Best Practices” document.  No consensus was reached on either suggestion.

-         A consensus was reached for a ‘volunteer’ to draw up a draft charter with a focused scope (which is also non-overlapping with other WGs).  This will be circulated on the Appliances mailing list for review and comment.

 

4.         Agreed Action Items

 

  1. [All]:  Post suggestions for charter and scope of work to Appliances mailing list.
  2. [Telcordia]:  Draw up first draft of Charter for Networked Appliances BoF and circulate on Appliances mailing list (appliances@research.telcordia.com).
  3. [All]:  Review draft charter and post comments to Appliances mailing list.