Subject: [Anima] UCAN BOF draft minutes

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:47:50 +1200

Please send your corrections:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-ucan

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:39:29 -0400

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-ucan
...

A few amplifications, from my hand-written notes (which had a little 
more information than I had expected) and a review of the recording.

In item 6. Open Mic, we have Benoit, then Mark, then Brian. Following 
that my notes have Benoit (but could be someone else) saying that the 
Homenet work has been a massive investment already, but the problem 
statement reads as if it could be thrown away. Charter revisions are 
needed based on the comments just heard. Just agreeing on common 
terminology and a problem statement will be a fair bit of work.

Slightly further down, as well as asking about the procedural way 
forward, Michael Richardson said that this discussion could lead to a 
common understanding of who owns what device. Brian agreed on the 
importance of that issue. Michael said to focus efforts there, and drop 
other issues. He used the term "certificate" in describing the work to 
be done.

Some time after Elliot Lear spoke my notes have Ran Atkinson saying 
there are too many use cases. Anima/UCAN needs 3-4-6 months of work on 
requirements, with a lot more focus. I think that corresponds to the 
bullet under "Chair Questions" following "IT/OT convergence".

Michael Behringer did a final summation which included an action item to 
resolve aany issues with Homenet.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:27:50 +1200

Thnaks Tom. I will edit those points into the minutes in a few days,
with any other comments that come in. Some personal comments below...

On 11/08/2014 07:39, Tom Taylor wrote:
> statement reads as if it could be thrown away. 

I think that was Mark again? Anyway, Mark was right that my phrasing
was wrong. I meant to convey that my intention was to use the existing
homenet work (i.e. HNCP) as a hypothetical case to extract requirements,
not to propose an alternative or to delay the ongoing work in homenet
(which I happen to think is excellent).

> Charter revisions are

Absolutely. In fact a cryptographic device identity mechanism is pretty
much essential; otherwise an AN system is open to attack.

> there are too many use cases. 

Agreed, as the draft charter shows.

> Anima/UCAN needs 3-4-6 months of work on

Opinions may vary about whether a formal requirements analysis is
needed (beyond what is already in the NMRG gap analysis draft),
but that's part of the charter debate.

> resolve any issues with Homenet.

Yes. I'm hoping the above explanation helps with that. We also had
the relationships with I2RS and netconf-zerotouch to resolve.
I2RS is (IMHO) part of the landscape we have to co-exist with.
Netconf-zerotouch might be viewed as an alternative to
draft-pritikin-bootstrapping-keyinfrastructures in some scenarios
(but that should be OK, alternative solutions are not forbidden).

  Brian