IP over Digital Video Broadcast (IPDVB) WG IETF-69
26th July 2007
Internet Area

ipdvb WG Chair: Gorry Fairhurst gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
ipdvb Secretary: Martin Stiemerling
jabber: ipdvb@jabber.ietf.org
Archive: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/ipdvb/archive
Note-Taker for IETF-69: Carsten Borman


1. Agenda Bashing - Chair

  A recently revised individual draft on ULE security extensions 
  was taken at the end of the meeting.

2. Document Status - Chair
  Outstanding documents (see slides) to be forwarded for WGLC soon.

* Milestones.
The AR protocol is the only open work item with no active drafts.

* Documents in Last Call - None.
* Documents in IESG/AD Review - None.
* Documents in RFC Editor Queue:
    draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-06.txt
* Published RFCs - None in this period.


3. ULE Security Requirements - Chair proxy for Authors
   draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-03.txt

  The authors had received comments from the list and discussed
  these.  The current draft includes all comments and the authors 
  suggest this was ready for WGLC.

  This document had been sent to ETSI BSM for comment (no comments 
  currently received). This and the next draft were also sent to
  DVB-Forum for comment, and will be tabled at the GBS meeting in
  August 2007. They are invited to provide comments to this WG.

The chair asked if the meeting had comments on current draft.
(no comments)
The WG expects to move this to a WGLC after the DVB meeting.


4. Extension Formats for ULE & GSE - Gorry Fairhurst
   draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-03.txt

  The draft is now at -03: The latest draft mainly fixes text.
  There are some minor fixes to be applied in a new rev.  
  Rev -03 introduced a table with a recommended ordering for the 
  types of extensions. The IANA registry is totally flat, though,
  and no specific ordering is required. Is this a good
  idea or a bad idea?

Carsten: What is the recommendation trying to do?
Gorry: It is intended to provide implementers with an 
  expectation  so that they can build an optimized path 
  (e.g., header prediction).
Carsten: There is a danger that implementors may focus on 
  testing only the recommended ordering and not the other 
  orderings, resulting in interoperability issues.
Gorry: True. Some headers are already limited to specific 
 positions in the chain, but stacks should allow others to 
 be ordered as per the RFCs.

Chair asked if the meeting had comments on the current draft?
(no comments)
The WG also expects to move this to a WGLC after the DVB meeting.


5. ULE Implementation Status - Chair/Various

Ulegene (Bernhard Collini-Nocker, Christian Praehauser)
  The framework supports MPE, ULE, and has running code for 
  the extension headers discussed previously. This may in 
  future be published open-source.

Question: When will the open-source status be decided?
Christian  Praehauser (via Jabber): Soon, we expect in August.


6. Security Extension header for ULE - Prashant Pillai

  This was first presented some time ago to the WG, but was 
  parked while the  authors worked on the requirements draft. 
  It was revived this week. It is an individual submission 
  with no Charter item currently against this work.

  The draft defines only the framing, as a security building 
  block (it does not define keying procedures or key 
  management; it does provide proposals though - appropriate 
  to a range of systems.) This draft is aligned with 
  requirements rev -03.

  Gorry encourages feedback to the authors, especially when 
  the WG is commenting on the requirements draft.


7. Other related drafts: 

MIB for DVB-RCS - Chair  proxy for Authors
draft-combes-ipdvb-mib-rcs-01.txt

  This is an individual submission. It was presented at 
  IETF-68 in Prague by Stephane Combes on behalf of Satlabs. 
  It is not intended to be adopted as a WG draft, but is 
  put forward as a potential informational document. Comments
  are welcome via the list.

Mark Townsley (AD): Is this the draft with issues with 
  boilerplate?
Gorry: Yes, SatLabs wish to maintain edit control.

Mark Townsley: After the meeting is closed, we will find 
  advice on the boilerplate and IPR issues. 
  Are there other issues?
Gorry: I do not believe we have other issues with this draft. 
  What are the procedures for progressing the draft?
Mark Townsley:  We can still ask the MIB doctors for a review, 
  and that would be appropriate. Before that, the WG should 
  look at the draft and provide any comments.
Gorry: I think the document is now ready for this. I shall 
  send a note to the list encouraging people to read the 
  -01 revision.

The WG meeting closed with 10 people present, and 2 remote participants.