Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TC Implementation meeting minutes #4327

Open
matzf opened this issue Mar 14, 2023 · 8 comments
Open

TC Implementation meeting minutes #4327

matzf opened this issue Mar 14, 2023 · 8 comments

Comments

@matzf
Copy link
Contributor

matzf commented Mar 14, 2023

The Technical Committee (TC) Implementation is a body of the SCION Association who oversees and steers the open-source SCION implementation project.
The TC Implementation is the @scionproto/scion-core-team.

This meta-issue records meeting minutes for the TC Implementation.

@matzf
Copy link
Contributor Author

matzf commented Mar 14, 2023

  1. March 2023

@oncilla, @lukedirtwalker, @FR4NK-W, @marcfrei, @matzf

Proposal review

Other topics

  • Configuration setup with various separate files is a mess and should eventually be (re-) designed. No strong preconceived ideas on what this should look like. @oncilla mentions caddy as an example of a well thought out system allowing on-the-fly changes to parts of the configuration without restarts.

@matzf
Copy link
Contributor Author

matzf commented Jun 2, 2023

1 June 2023
@oncilla, @lukedirtwalker, @FR4NK-W, @marcfrei, @matzf

Roadmap planning and releases

Roadmaps, Project planning

The idea is to make planned development activity publicly visible, to communicate planned work to users and help coordinate developers.
We want to keep the process lightweight:

  1. gather input from community on planned work, desired features etc. in a github issue or discussion
  2. the TC compiles a high level roadmap and publishes this

The plans should be communicated in a way that encourages contributions. We need to avoid giving the idea "my topic is not in the roadmap so my contribution is not welcome", and also not "my topic is in the roadmap so it will be done without me doing anything".

Releases

We want to have (tagged) releases, to get

  • version number to refer to
  • way to communicate compatibilities and deprecation schedules etc.
  • binary installation, as a easier way to start using the software

The audience for the releases is everybody in the open-source SCION ecosystem:

  • operators of SCION infrastructure, operators of SCION end-hosts use the releases as source for binaries to install
  • users of libraries
  • maintainers of forks/dependent projects
    Even though not all audiences may have the same ideal release cadence, it makes most sense for us to just find a compromise. Due to the single repo setup, maintaining independent release cycles would be too complicated.

Not committing on either feature based or time based releases. We'll just start with something and see what works.
The roadmaps include planned releases, but without committing to timing or feature sets.

@matzf will initiate the planning process described above, and setup the infrastructure for binary releases.

Proposal / PR review

Other topics

  • Control plane implementation has some warts and rough edges that can only be fixed with an incompatible update. These issues should be collected in a github discussion so that we can work out a way to address all of it in one go. Examples are:
    • gRPC/HTTP2 over QUIC ugliness
    • SVC resolution
    • wrong namespace for proto definitions

@matzf
Copy link
Contributor Author

matzf commented Oct 3, 2023

2 October 2023
@oncilla, @lukedirtwalker, @FR4NK-W, @marcfrei, @matzf

Roadmap planning and releases

Discussed roadmap document which will be published soon.

Proposal / PR review

Other topics

  • @marcfrei raised that there is a lack of coordination between developers, in particular for topics that are related to the SCION implementation but may not be in scope for the scionproto/scion repository. Concretely, there are multiple people working on application programming libraries for languages other than golang, but this work is invisible to most of us, and may be in fact duplicate. To address this, we'll:
    • Organize a regular, short call for contributors. For the start, we'll try the format of a ~30 minute call scheduled fortnightly, but only do it if there is demand. On the days before the call, we'll ask (in the #dev chat) if there are topics to be discussed, otherwise cancel it.
    • Offer adopting related projects into "contrib" repositories in the scionproto organization, to make this work more broadly visible. We'll have to figure out how exactly this would look like once we've identified topics that would be a good fit.

@matzf
Copy link
Contributor Author

matzf commented Dec 7, 2023

30 November 2023
@oncilla, @lukedirtwalker, @FR4NK-W, @marcfrei, @jiceatscion, @matzf

Proposal / PR review

End host stack projects overview

Following up on a discussion in the previous week's Contributor Call; There are multiple development projects that concern the SCION end host stack. Created a document aiming to give an overview on how these parts will fit together.
Brief presentation by @matzf and discussion; no vetos, so created pull request for more detailed review and public discussion

Packaging; testing on different platforms

Looking for options to test cross-compiled packages on arm (for WIP #4448).

@oncilla oncilla pinned this issue Dec 15, 2023
@jiceatscion
Copy link
Contributor

jiceatscion commented Jun 14, 2024

10 June, 2024
@oncilla, @lukedirtwalker, @FR4NK-W, @marcfrei, @jiceatscion, @matzf

Administrative matters

  • Due to Matthias leaving, the committee needs a new chair. The departing chair proposes that the job be available to any committee member. No objection, but no taker either. JC accepts the position. No objection.

  • Due to Matthias leaving the committee would benefit from a new member with long SCION experience. Several present suggest asking if Jordi Subirà would be interested. Unanimous approval in favor of inviting Jordi. Assuming he is willing, the board's approval would be required (but is probable).

  • The project could use more code change approvers. Currently only committee members can approve. Consensus is that we could give approval powers to non-committee members. All present agree on the following process:

    • A future approver, is invited to co-review PRs, without actual power to approve.
    • If current approvers find the reviews helpful, the reviewer is given approval powers.
    • This may at some point be followed by an invitation to join the committee.

    Several members propose to start this process with Tilman Zäschke. Motion approved.

  • François noticed that the "technical committee - implementation" does not, per it's charter, report to the Board. Due to a typo in the charter. This would need to be checked and fixed.

Communications

  • JC provides a summary of the board of advisors meeting.

Roadmap

  • Many items on the roadmap are shifting by 4 months.
  • Matthias and JC propose to not add new major roadmap items for now, since the previous roadmap was optimistic and (per the conclusions of the BoA) innovations should not be pursued yet. Motion approved.
  • Gateway enhancements can be de-prioritized (the OS gateway code isn't used much).
  • Configurable beaconing policy is needed badly by SCIERA. A discussion follows regarding how best to implement that. No clear decision emerges.
  • Dispatcher-less: quite a few small cleanup items. Enough to constitute a task on the roadmap to account for time spent.
  • ConnectRpc is part of the roadmap item "stabilize the CS API". Dominik anticipates in to be in next release w/ a feature flag. Dominik's estimates the work to be 80% complete. One clever member remarks that it means it is close to half done.

Proposals reviews

  • Replacing SVC resolution: not started. Lack of time.
  • Support for overlapping ISDs: will be abandoned. Lack of demand. It probably means that the requirement that AS numbers be globally unique isn't useful. A discussion ensues but no definitive conclusion. The topic will need more work before it can be closed.
  • gRPC/QUICK: approved and making progress (connectRpc).
  • Cross-segment hop fields: abandoned. Lack of time.
  • NAT support: Marc and Til are working on a design proposal.

@nicorusti nicorusti unpinned this issue Jul 18, 2024
@jiceatscion
Copy link
Contributor

jiceatscion commented Dec 18, 2024

Minutes of the Dec 17 2024 Meeting

@oncilla, @lukedirtwalker, @FR4NK-W, @marcfrei, @jiceatscion, @mlegner, @JordiSubira, @nicorusti

Communications

  • Nicola provides an update on association activities since the last meeting: slides
  • JC presents the updated roadmap: spreadsheet
  • Snapshot of today's state:
    image

Roadmap Discussions

  • JC points out that since the last meeting, only one major item has been completed; the dispatcher removal. Of the three major themes, only two currently have an item in-progress: router high performance IO and http3 CS API (currently stalled).
  • Dominik agrees to hand-off the merging of his http3 CS API code into the main tree to whomever is willing to do the legwork. JC to figure out who that might be.
  • François offers to own the end-host auto-configuration item.
  • end-host autoconfig planning:
    • The various pieces are scattered between ETH netsec and Magdeburg ovgu repos. Both groups need to be involved.
    • It is used by JPAN. May be the go pan API could do the same.
    • Anapaya is interested in the topic too (esp. fetching TRCs). However, will not productize anything that relies on topology.json. Dominik to provide feedback on bootstraper in public repository.
  • Hummingbird: There might be some movement on this. Eventually it should be in OS and commercial implementations. One member may contribute it to the open source but in the long term.
  • Enabling experimental features safely: is one item on the roadmap but no specific design. JC encourages people to suggest/demand refactorings to make room for new features, will prioritize such efforts.
  • DrKey:
    • Mark asks: DrKey in the prod network - is it in there, or not there? Not merged into scionproto.
    • Dominik: If OS implements it, then Anapaya will incorporate it in their products.
    • Jordi: some key management part is missing: how to exchange master keys within an AS, and how to do this over a secure channel.
    • Hummingbird independent from DrKey, auth is an external system.

Action items [inferred from discussion]

  • JC to coordinate with Dominik and find helpers to merge http3 CS API code to scionproto
  • François to coordinate efforts of netsec/Anapaya/Magdeburg to integrate autoconfig.

Acion items still pending from previous TC meeting

  • Invite Til to do more code reviews with intent of giving him approval powers.

@JordiSubira
Copy link
Contributor

JordiSubira commented Dec 18, 2024 via email

@jiceatscion
Copy link
Contributor

Hello JC, Thank you for the report. Just a quick clarification, the DRKey management part which is missing is about the "local" (within the same AS) master secret/Lvl0 key distribution (this is especially important for SCMP, which involves BRs). DRKey exchange between ASes is already there and DRKey exchanges are fully functional. The other missing part is a secure communication channel from intra-AS request, which currently we don't have and renders DRKey-values "secrecy" unfeasible, but it's still doable. Perhaps you meant this, but it's only to avoid confusion. Best, Jordi.

Thanks for the clarification. I did not mean really anything because my understanding of DRkey is close to zero. I updated the minutes, albeit in a rather laconic way. Let me know if that's not enough.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants