SNAC

Summary

The SNAC working group held an interim meeting to resolve outstanding issues on draft-ietf-snac-simple and prepare for Working Group Last Call (WGLC). The primary focus was on the status of state machines, various pull requests regarding prefixes and DNS, and establishing a timeline for publication.

Key Discussion Points

State Machine Status

Ted Lemon raised concerns about the complexity of making state machines normative, citing past IETF experience (e.g., DHCP) where contradictions between text and diagrams caused interoperability issues.
Consensus: The state machines will be moved to an informative appendix. The normative text in the main body of the document remains the authoritative specification.
Éric Vyncke and Jonathan Hui supported this approach to simplify the path to WGLC.
Ted Lemon and Esko Dijk will coordinate to move the existing state machine descriptions from the main text to the appendix and ensure the normative text is sufficiently descriptive.

Technical Pull Requests (PRs) and Issues

ULA Link Prefixes (PR regarding stability): Esko Dijk discussed maintaining stable ULA link prefixes across reboots. Éric Vyncke advised providing guidance on "SHOULD" exceptions or using "MUST" to satisfy IESG requirements. Ted Lemon suggested reviewing RFC 9724 and RFC 9727 for potential references regarding address anonymization.
NAT64 and DNS64: The group discussed whether the SNAC router should provide DNS64 synthesis. Ted Lemon noted that most modern devices (and even IoT devices) are capable of local synthesis. Consensus: Remove references to DNS64; rely on NAT64 and PREF64 for local synthesis by end devices.
Multiple AIL Interfaces: The group reaffirmed that support for multiple AIL (Adjacent Infrastructure Link) interfaces is out of scope for the "Simple" document and belongs in "SNAC Complex" or future work.
DNS Service Discovery and Domain Names: Ted Lemon addressed the domain to be used by the discovery proxy. He cautioned against using unallocated domains like .lan.
- Decision: The group agreed to use default.service.arpa (or subdomains thereof) for discovery queries to avoid collisions and unmanaged domain usage.
Secure DNS (DoT/DoH): Esko Dijk raised the issue of secure querying from the stub network. Ted Lemon and Éric Vyncke agreed not to "boil the ocean" regarding upstream DNS security beyond what is already standard, noting that true anonymity requires host-based solutions (e.g., DEPRIVE) which are out of scope.
DHCP Significant Change (RFC 8415bis): Esko Dijk noted that some DHCP requirements are "SHOULD" level. Ted Lemon argued against "fixing" other specifications (like RFC 8415bis) within this document. The document will continue to reference existing standards.
Startup Randomization: Esko Dijk pointed out that power outage scenarios could cause synchronized RA (Router Advertisement) broadcasts. Ted Lemon suggested that because SNAC routers might be deployed in high density (e.g., multiple smart speakers), it may be worth being more specific than RFC 4861 regarding timing to improve scalability.

Authorship

David Lou proposed adding Esko Dijk to the author list of draft-ietf-snac-simple in recognition of his significant contributions. The proposal was unanimously supported by those present (Ted Lemon, Darren Dukes, Éric Vyncke, and Jonathan Hui).

Decisions and Action Items

Decision: State machines are informative and will be placed in an appendix.
Decision: Remove DNS64 synthesis requirements; keep NAT64.
Decision: Use default.service.arpa for the discovery proxy domain.
Decision: Esko Dijk is added as a co-author of the "Simple" draft.
Action Item: Ted Lemon to spend time over the coming days updating the draft based on the PR discussions and state machine relocation.
Action Item: Esko Dijk to review RFC 9724 and RFC 9727 to see if they can be constructively referenced regarding prefix stability.

Next Steps

Draft Publication: An updated version of draft-ietf-snac-simple is expected to be published by Monday.
WGLC: Jonathan Hui intends to initiate a Working Group Last Call on Monday, following the publication of the updated draft.
Next Meeting: Another interim meeting is scheduled for two weeks from today to address any feedback arising during the WGLC.

Automatic IETF Minutes