Subject: [Rserpool] Reliable Server Pooling Minutes from IETF #59

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:59:47 -0600

Please send any comments or questions to the list.  

-- maureen

Approximately 30 people attended the meeting at IETF #59.

Chairs:
Lyndon Ong; [email-masked]
Maureen Stillman; [email-masked]

We discussed the services document draft-ietf-rserpool-service-00.txt.  This document was recently updated and posted to the list.  We request that people read the document and send comments to the list.   

Next we discussed the Rserpool architecture, draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-07.txt which is in IESG review.  The IESG requested some changes to this document which raised some issues.  Specifically questions were raised about whether the protocols should be split into more pieces to aid in its understanding and possibly to aid in implementation.  This topic needs to be investigated further.

The comparison document draft-ietf-rserpool-comparison-07.txt was added to the agenda because the issues raised by the reserpool architecture review also had impact on the comparison document.  Further issues were raised by the AD review concerning evaluation of other IETF protocols such as Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) RFC 3401-6 and Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) draft-ietf-provreg-epp-09 in relation to Rserpool.  We need to evaluate these protocols and reach a determination about their applicability to Rserpool.  Also the issue of using URN was raised.  Rserpool uses pool handle names in ASCII format rather than URN.  This is due to issues such as hierarchy in the name resolution process.  The Rserpool name space is not hierarchical.  The comment was that this seems to be an architectural issue rather than a comparison document issue.
 
The Rserpool security threat document draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-02.txt is also in AD review.  Comments were also received from the AD and have been added to -03.  This draft will be sent to be published after IETF 59.  A summary of the threats and mitigations was presented.  This is the text added to the security considerations section in response to AD review.  An issue was raised about the security of cookies. Cookies are not part of the Rserpool infrastructure, but it might make sense to provide security guidance on this area.  The security design team will evaluate this issue and make a recommendation.  This issue should also be discussed on the list.

We will continue to work on documents that have been reviewed by our ADs.  Updated internet-drafts are being generated in response to comments.

-- maureen

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool