Session Date/Time: 26 Jun 2026 15:00
Here is the complete verbatim transcript of the meeting:
Ines Robles: Okay, we wait a couple of minutes if you agree so we can wait for more people to join. Thank you.
Ines Robles: Okay, I think we can proceed with the meeting. Welcome to this IETF 116 pre-meeting. Um, okay, the agenda is as follows. We are going to provide a reminder of the reviews. Then we are going to go through the usual IoT groups updates, then the new plan activities, and finally with other SDOs updates if someone wants to share, and then any other business. So this meeting is alongside the Note Wells, and we are of course recording this meeting. Please add your name into the attending list. So about the IoT directory reviews, okay, we understand that probably if we assign a document to you, probably you are not an expert, but we have the confidence that you can make the review with the knowledge that you have, and this is basically what we want, your point of view of the topic. So please consider to review documents, and if you cannot do it, please decline the request as soon as possible so we can reassign it early and don't waste time because the deadlines are sometimes not short. So please consider that. So about the IoT groups, Sixlow, Carles, can you provide an update, please?
Carles Gomez: Yes, hello everyone. Sixlow will meet in Vienna. Currently we have five working group documents. Two of them have been submitted to the ESG for publication. The first is Path-Aware Semantic Addressing, PASA, for LLNs. This document is now being updated based on a review that was received on the mailing list. The second document is the Generic Address Assignment Option, GAU, for Sixlowpan ND. The authors are currently working on an update intended to address some concerns from at least one Sixlowman participant. And we also have three other working group documents at earlier stages. One is the transmission of SCHC compressed packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks, which is being updated to address somewhat minor issue with one of the rollover modes defined there. Also the transmission of IPv6 packets over short-range optical wireless communications, which is also being updated. And finally, the last working group document, which was recently adopted, is the transmission of IPv6 over Multi-drop Serial Bus Token Passing, MSTP, networks, which is intended to obsolete RFC 8163. MSTP is one of the alternatives in BACnet for building automation. And initially, it provided some fixes, some terminology update, and now the main point is whether SCHC will be supported as optional mechanism for header compression. So any comments or questions?
Ines Robles: Okay, thank you very much, Carles. Ace, Loganadhan, or someone that can provide an update?
Ines Robles: Okay. About Anima, Sheng, Charles, or someone that can provide an update?
Ines Robles: Okay. ASDF, Michael, Lorenzo?
Ari Keränen: I think we don't have Michael or Lorenzo, but I can quickly mention that ASDF is planning to meet at IETF in Vienna, and I think one of the key topics will be the finalization of the NIPSY, non-internet connected devices gateway specification. But then there are also a bunch of other drafts in the works, including digital twins, mapping documents, etc.
Ines Robles: Okay, great. Thank you very much, Ari. Comments or questions? Okay. CBOR. I think we don't have anyone, but someone can provide an update?
Carsten Bormann: So, I could quickly report that there is one document that completed working group last call, the diagnostic notation document. There are still a lot of diverging opinions, in particular, with two participants of the working group and the chairs are trying to manage this divergence. It's hard to say whether that will succeed or not, but technically, we are essentially done. We have implementations. Just learned about a new implementation today, I was completely flabbergasted, but they they just did this, amazing. Um, so let's see what what happens.
Ines Robles: Great. Thank you very much, Carsten. Comments or questions? Okay. CORE, Marco.
Marco Tiloca: Yes, hi all. Since March, we published two RFCs, an informational basically about a reason IANA registration and a proposed standard about DNS over COAP. And we flooded the RFC editor with four documents, two of which are under, well, it's final review now, should really be out 48. And they received their to-be RFC number already. One is constrained resource identifiers, and one is C-Ranges for point-holders, in the interest of young CBOR. The other two ones are related to group communication, one about the transport, one about the security protocol. Unsurprisingly, they are clustered together, but also together with two other related documents in the ACE working group that are also with the RFC editor as we speak. On other working group documents, three completed working group last call, one pretty recently, as COAP URI path abbrev defining a new COAP option for abbreviating URI paths. And we expect a new revision soon to move it forward. The other two ones completed working group last call some time ago. We expect to request publication relatively soon, especially for the third one in that list, COAP PubSub. Other two documents are also in the CORE CONF cluster, completed the first working group last call, we plan the second one. But there has been quite a lot of work on those in interim meetings and on the mailing list in the recent months. And under the same cluster, we have also recently adopted another document on representing metadata in young CBOR. There's other activities, of course, going on, mostly for working group documents on correction and clarification for COAPs, for COAP COAP notification, as multicast responses and a number of items related to the OSCORE security protocol. And recently, Laurent also brought up a possible new work on private seed translation for CORE CONF. And early hints seem to be that part of that, as the underlying work, could be of interest most of all for CORE, while a particular application of that can instead be brought up in the SCHC working group. We'll meet in Vienna for a two-hour session, the preliminary agenda says Thursday, and we plan to resume our interim meetings, scheduled already in September. Thank you.
Ines Robles: Thank you very much, Marco. Comments or questions? Okay. COSE. I think we don't have the chair. Someone can provide an update?
Ines Robles: DetNet. We don't have the chairs, but Janos filled the notes, so we are very thankful. We will not read it. You can read it later. IoT Ops. Alexey.
Alexey Melnikov: Yeah, let me, can you hear me?
Ines Robles: Yes, we can hear you.
Alexey Melnikov: Okay, okay. Let me try this. All right. So, um, we had two documents, uh, with our area director. One of them, uh, Matt just returned to the working group because authors were a bit slow, well, rather slow. Um, so he returned comparison to of COAP security protocols to the working group. Uh, the other one is, there are a couple of discusses on terminology for constrained node networks. Uh, Carsten, do you want to talk about this?
Carsten Bormann: Yes, there were two comments. One was about, talking about maximum transmission units and Gorry pointed out that maybe it's not so smart to give the impression that we know how to work with very large packet sizes, so we change the wording on that. I think there is very little going on in the real internet that is larger than than 64k. And the other observation was that the the section about secret shielding is very embryonic, which actually is intended, so maybe it was a good idea to to point out that intention in the section, but secret shielding is a pretty important differentiator between different IoT platforms at this point in time, and that will only increase with all the cyber security reliability and so on activity going on. So we at least wanted to plant the flag there and and I think terminology will develop within the next few years into a more solid state. So, right now there is a PR and and I was waiting for the ADs to to comment on my PR.
Alexey Melnikov: Okay, sounds great. Thank you. Um, then among active documents, we have, uh, IoT DNS Security and Privacy Guidelines, uh, which is a relatively recent document, but was quite actively discussed in the working group. Uh, there were some pre-reviews, and I think it will be going to working group last call shortly, maybe even before Vienna. Uh, on the ownership and licensing statement in YANG, uh, authors are working on an update, uh, hopefully within next week or so we'll get a new version, and then we'll see what's there. Um, and then we have a summary of security enabling technologies for IoT devices. Um, this document expired, um, the editor was trying to get people to review and kind of given up hope, so then then he was busy with other stuff so he didn't have cycles. Well, I think we found another potential co-editor or maybe main editor for this document, and we'll see how it goes. So, uh, hopefully there will be at least some discussion in Vienna or maybe even update to the document, we'll see. I think that's it for IoT Ops.
Ines Robles: Okay, great. Thank you very much, Alexey and Carsten. Other comments or questions? Okay. It seems that we don't have the chairs of Lake and Rats. Someone can provide an update on those? Any of those?
Ines Robles: Okay. For Roll, we will not meet in the next IETF. We just had an interim meeting on 17 June. One draft was published as a RFC, and Enrollment Priority as is working in the AD review. These modifications and NSA extension are still in progress. And we would like to have reviewers for those documents, so if you're willing to do reviews, please let me know. Thank you. Comments or questions?
Ines Robles: Okay. It seems that for SCHC, Scheme, Suit, Teep, the chairs are not present. Someone...
Éric Vyncke: The chairs are not present, Ines, but I can say a few words as responsible AD for SCHC. So a lot of interims, they are running an interim every two weeks. mainly working on the SCHC architecture. It's kind of weird, of course, to put the architecture draft after having shipped the SCHC. But anyway, and they are also working on the COAP update, SCHC over COAP update. Just a few other stuff.
Ines Robles: Great. Thank you very much, Éric.
Éric Vyncke: No problem.
Ines Robles: Other comments or questions? Okay. For Scheme, someone can provide an update?
Ines Robles: For Suit, someone can provide an update?
Hannes Tschofenig: Um, I can say a few words about Suit. Um, the many of the documents are currently in ESG processing, and there have been updates made based on review comments on on all the different, well, many of the different documents. Uh, so it's moving along, but, as always, it takes some time. But there's progress, so that's good.
Ines Robles: Perfect. Thank you, thank you very much, Hannes, for the update. Um, other comments or questions? Okay. Teep. Someone can provide an update on Teep?
Hannes Tschofenig: Well, Teep is mostly pending on the completion of the Suit documents, so it's just waiting in the ESG processing for, well, probably even RFC editor queue, for the for the Suit documents to to complete. So.
Ines Robles: Okay, great. Thank you very much, Hannes. Other comments or questions? Okay. IRTF, Thing-to-Thing Research Group, Ari or Carsten.
Ari Keränen: Yes, so we are planning to meet in Vienna, exact details are still open when and where. And the focus area that we're planning for is this IETF IoT technologies in enabling AI agent interactions with IoT environments. So as you may have seen, there's a lot of active work now on the AI agent space and we're looking up this IoT specifics of of that area right now. So we did already have a very good session on that at the Madrid IETF and we're planning to follow up on that topic. And actually, on on that topic, would be very interesting to hear from the other IoT-related groups at the IETF and IRTF, do you have agentic IoT-related work ongoing that we should, uh, you know, connect here and perhaps have, you know, relevant presentations? Would love to hear from any one of you if you if you have come across any. Unfortunately, we have in the plan slot an unfortunate conflict with our one of the relevant AI agent BOFs, so we are right now looking at can we reschedule or how we could go around with that conflict. Then beyond the current focus topic, we have also one draft that passed the research group last call, the Taxonomy of Operational Security Considerations for Manufacture Installed Keys and Trust Anchors. So we expect that to move towards publication quite soon.
Ines Robles: Great, perfect. Thank you, Ari. Additional comments or questions? Okay. So, um, about new plan activities at the IETF or IRTF, someone can provide an update?
Ines Robles: Okay. About other SDOs?
Ines Robles: Okay, so if there is no any other business, we can conclude the meeting. So thank you very much, everyone, for joining, and for completing the notes, and to the minute takers as well. Um, okay, see you in the next IETF.
Ari Keränen: And thank you, Ines and Ari, for organizing this. Always useful.
Ines Robles: Okay, my pleasure. Thank you.
Ari Keränen: Thank you, Ari.
Carsten Bormann: Thank you, efficiently organized. Thank you.
Ines Robles: Thank you.
Marco Tiloca: Thank you, bye-bye.
Ari Keränen: Bye-bye.
Marco Tiloca: Thanks, bye-bye.
Ines Robles: Bye-bye.