Monday, July 31, 2000 RAP Working Group Meeting 48th IETF Meeting Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Session I 9:00 AM - 11:30 AM Meeting Notes Reported by Mark Stevens, Scott McManus and Diana Rawlins David Durham on COPS-PR ----------------------- After introductions and agenda bashing, Dave Durham gave the group an Update from David Durham on the COPS-PR draft. (i.e. draft-ietf-rap-pr-03.txt) Summarizing, COPS-PR draft is ready for working group last call. Clarifications have been made on synchronization behaviours. Clarifications have been made on responses to unsolicited messages. Error code descriptions have been improved. At least 6 Companies demonstrated interoperability. Last-call to begin at the end of IETF week which is Aug 4, 2000. Last-call to go for 2 weeks and then submit to IESG as a standards track document. David Durham on COPS for AAA ---------------------------- David Durham also gave the group an update on draft-durham-aaa-cops-ext-00.txt, a draft that describes how COPS could meet the requirments described by the AAA requirements document. A team formed in May 2000 used the evaluated the draft among others and issued a draft containing the team's findings. COPS scored higher than all but DIAMETER which scored nearly indistiguishably higher. In summary, COPS Acceptable meets most requirements. There were no comments from attending participants. Scott Hahn on the Framework PIB ------------------------------- Scott Hahn presented a status report on the Framework PIB draft (i.e. draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib-01.txt) The draft defines basic and common classes for COPS. Capability classes define information enabling PDP to target policies. Both PDP to PEP and PEP to PDP initiated exchanges are supported. These are Basic classes for COPS. Capability classes define information enabling PDP to target policies. PDP to PEP and PEP to PDP initiations are supported. Main points: - Defines common Policy Rule Classes useful for all potential client types - Avoids redefinition. The base can be re-used - term client type and subject category are equivalent Are we ready for working group last-call? Response: Yes. A suggestion was made that after September interoperabilty test, the group should ask for working group last call. Fran Reichmeyer on COPS for MPLS -------------------------------- Main points: - PIB definition for MPLS - Useful for both CCR-LDP and RSVP / TE - Policy help define LSP tunnel setup - Draft on MPLS WG agenda Fran Reichmeyer on presented a draft descrinbing the use of COPS for MPLS. The draft is being worked in the mpls working group, rather than the RAP working group. Fran solicited input from RAP working group participants. Joel Halpren expressed concerns on the decomposition of information in the method presented. Generally, COPS sends policy oriented, non-instance specific information. Two layers of dialog are coupled in this presentation. This PIB doesn't seen to sliced in the right way. What goes in a PIB? Policy control must be introduced. Area Director, Bert Wijnen, indicated that the Traffic engineering working group is discussing MIB at high-level being presented. Fran indicated one of his co-authors, Steven Wright, would be participating in the TEWG and could receive that group's input. Bert Wijnen also indicated that he felt that the group need to make up its mind on where ongoing COPS development would occur. Where do we do this work? Joel Halpren responded with comments that indicate that he believed that the decomposition of information would go better in RAP. Diana Rawlins on Accounting PIB ------------------------------- - Defines reporting structures commonly used by all client types - Question from floor about impact on COPS-PR/Policy Framework PIB; response was semantics consistent with existing COPS work, there are some clarifications needed - Suggestion that draft discuss alternatives and reasons COPS chosen for this Diana asked that it become a working group item. Dave Durham expressed that the framework for such a PIB is in place and that the the decription does not belong in COPS-PR document. He further indicated that there was no reason to bind it to framework PIB document and that indeed the accounting PIB work would fill a hole left in the COPS work done to date. It neeeds to be a wg work item. Shai Herzog agreed. His comments summarized: Report accounting is needed and it needs to be a separate work item. COPS-PR draft needs examination to insure it does not get in the way. In response, Diana Rawlins indicates that she did not anticipate any such conflicts. Clarifications may be needed in the area of fail-over, but on the surface it seems to be straight-forward. Area Director, Bert Wijnen, made comment to the effect of the following statements and query: I am not sure this be a new work item or not. I don't see evaluation of alternative approaches. Other protocols exist. Why is using a PIB so much better? In response, Diana Rawlins made statements to the effect of the following: This approach affords a finer granulatrity of control. It enables users and applications to specifiy an interval and reduce unnecessary traffic. Traps have proved problematic. Other approaches have been examined. Area Director, Bert Wijnen requested that the authors add summaries of their evaluation to the documnet. Responding to the implication of a Bert's earlier question about the scope of accounting, Shai Herzog responded with a question and a statement to the effect of the following. Is this [accounting PIB] to be used for accounting in general or accounting for things using COPS for policy control specifically? If so, already developers have made the decision to use COPS, so this fits nicely. Diana Rawlins reinforced by saying that her purpose was for accounting for policies installed by COPS. David Durham provided additional supporting comments to the effect of the following. COPS accounting mechanisms are different. Look at the AAA evaluation committee requirements for batch accounting. It shows difference amoung a numnber of protocols. The accounting PIB is particularly suited to the purposes outlined today. Kwok Chan further iterated: Policy accounting allows negotiation on how much info the network device delivers. Keith McCloghrie on SPPI ------------------------ See draft and presentation slides for information on Keith's presentation. In summary, SPPI constitutes the rules for defining PIBS and we have made some changes in repsonse to comments made at the previous IETF and mailing list activiites. Juergen Schoenwaelder rasied a series of issues. Juergen indicated that he would forward his issues list to the mailing list immediately. Keith pledged to update the draft as soon as he could incorporate new information (before August 31, 2000). The intention is to make working group last-call at the August 2000. The working group should note that future PIB drafts are dependent upon SPPI being complete. Jesse Walker on COPS over TLS ----------------------------- Main points: - Propose using TLS to secure COPS - TLS doesn't have the firewall issues that IPSec does Deployment is problematic without a good security mechanism. COPS can be used for QoS, but can be used for many other purposes. Destibuting security policy is a problem that can be solved with COPS. No way to get the policies out to all of the millions of end systems. Discussion After Presentations ------------------------------ Shai Herzog: PIB for Accounting already in the charter effectively. After Jesse Walker's presentation, the co-chair and the area director looked for working group comments and participation with respect to making decisions on whether to go to last call on the mature documents presented in the meeting. To spark discussion, Area Director, Bert Wijnen, suggested the remaining drafts go on the experimental track. Dicussion was sparked, several disagreed. To gleen the consensus of the room, the co-chair asked for a show of hands in support the actions listed below. Go to last-call on COPS-PR draft Start August 4th, 2000 - 2 weeks Go to last-call on Framework PIB Start August 31st, 2000 - 2 weeks Go to last-call on SPPI draft Start August 31st, 2000 - 2 weeks Virutally no one raise a hand against any of these actions. A sufficient number of the participants present in the room raised a hand in support of these actions, although some participants did not raise a hand to indicate either perference. The co-chair gauged sufficient consensus in the room and will attempt to gleen consensus on the list as well. With sufficient consensus, the working group will take the actions listed above. In summary, a show of hands revealed sufficient consensus to warrant going to last call on the COPS-PR Framework PIB and the SPPI drafts. Session II ---------- After opening the second session of the RAP working group meeting, the co-chair yeilded the floor to the Area Director, Bert Wijnen. Bert explained that his comments with regard to the remaining working group drafts and the appropriate track were personal opinions expressed with the intention of sparking discussion in a rather quiet working group meeting. He reiterated that he had not been speaking as Area Director and he reassured the working group that the working group, co-chairs, and area director make the decision of a draft's track together and that his personal opinion did not necessarily reflect the recommendation that he would make as area director. Presentations ------------- Nasir Ghani COPS for ODSI - 10 minutes -------------------------------------- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ghani-odsi-cops-00.txt Main points: - Optical network policy needed - Uses outsourcing model - Decisions based on user group, IP addresses, SLA and TOD - Future work is to develop static policy model Jesse Walker CMS over COPS - 15 minutes --------------------------------------- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jwalker-cops-cms-00.txt Main points: - Proposal for end to end security in a proxy environment - Based on the RFC 2630 CMS - Comment from floor that Policy Framework could define common signature mechanism Man Li IPSec Policy PIB - 15 minutes ------------------------------------ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecpib-00.txt Main points: - PIB for use by IPSEC - IPSP work group item Comments on IPSec Policy PIB: Dave Durham asked if there was a format for the time delta being used. Man responded that the attribute comes from the core module ( including month of year, day of month, day of week and time of day ). Dave Durham then followed up by asking if TLS is sufficient ( since IPSec is identified as one of the candidate security protocols in RFC 2748 and since there are no lower-level protocols identified ) and if the PEP-PDP communication would have to support it. Man responded that "it depends on requirement", and some may not be happy with TLS. Someone in the audience asked if there was a possible past rejection of IPSec over COPS, and Dave responded by saying that COPS didn't include privacy considerations at the time. Someone made the clarification that IPSP negotiation was involved on an interdomain level, and then asked if the proposal was on the intradomain level. Downloading policy information was more likely to be on an intradomain level for the proposal. Shai Heraog asked if the proposal's concept was for one administrator on a single domain versus several different networks, and Man replied that this concept was correct. Jesse commented that CMS describes how to encode end-to-end data transfers, but there are no known implementations. Dinesh Dutt Ext for RSVP Rec Proxy - 10 minutes ----------------------------------------------- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nitsan-cops-rsvp-proxy-02.txt Main points: - Is a RSVP work group item - Outstanding item is the need a separate definition of the capability object from RSVP receiver proxy - Request that draft becomes RAP work group item Comments on the presentations were limited in the interest of time. Wrap Up ------- At the end of the meeting, the co-chair, Mark Stevens presented a strawman list of additional work items for the group. TLS work http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jwalker-cops-tls-00.txt CMS work http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jwalker-cops-cms-00.txt Accounting work http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rawlins-acct-fr-pib-00.txt Receiver Proxy Work http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nitsan-cops-rsvp-proxy-02.txt The co-chair asked for hands in support and hands against adding each item individually. Each time a sufficient number of hands indicated consensus for adding the work. Each time no one raised a hand against adding them. To further gauge consensus, the co-chair asked for volunteers to work on each document. Each work item had between 3 and 5 volunteers. The co-chair indicated that he would look for consensus on the mailing list to augment the mesaurement taken during the meeting. The meeting closed.