Re: [Banana] Reaching Consensus on Problem Statement

Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <margaretw42@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: banana@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7AC129462 for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:57:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wd05dK3inlOF for <banana@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x243.google.com (mail-qk0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99E8912964F for <banana@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x243.google.com with SMTP id e1so278308qkh.1 for <banana@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 07:57:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=R9cx5UkxglYGsCJxbiiJ2vZHKAbA3Hk96kK7zolzZ2k=; b=gg59XBJ16R9vSbz5twOKiC5E8C7sHhuWx8MSvbW+BiAOIqMcE1gzcUE8gDD+cvwpNq 0f8lmJLsOGTyIYoIprrvk0FiYb2U9f52wiwzUgSC3YrB3powseAqo7nEfIgGchlBmYk4 PBbkve3igYT93MoxXeNYj3rU0bzO3cK5DPOwMRwWYkpRnpbYMnn/usVf5wMG6c3l2wJg OZ89C3RjPgKiqA5pu+kJXqV0GU8TKuUOUdJTORduu+SsioRHLIFTDiqgYSN4Wmen8r/M KW054AgDohcDkS4Wx46HwFsAOSfom0BCVfpzrzENOhaQaw85vBr8z0fXCmxPQ222Pfqb TnHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=R9cx5UkxglYGsCJxbiiJ2vZHKAbA3Hk96kK7zolzZ2k=; b=VJcyDGf+bqIgCvz7Bdq3RR+lVe/XCUTa62Q/hNTHYMoE/s9ji31DO4WSZVv7utkHdI HwefvKOttfqQcGMATkfUqYldCROo3TJrqe8oRjAeUvLxesSwtoSE0wF5ns2Fi+ZHpN4e A8qjlzwjTAe1YlsUVYK+4E2f7aLSFhnz4qoLCGF3jSau2duDqnnHYrQ9qP35B8ojuQh1 oy+asIczfi3m4SN4erVI1j53eFOS3U4ifTrf/PYGSiCLUKOlzE2LyiSovYGiaayJerSB 3ZxdvIye/3fxDKz93Xs/JzhTtVBCd0BCBmSCJtdeuPKRr1m3TQ2qPF9fy4N2FlIfkQAg b3Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKz2LlH34wAiCtk2E/8aFeAcqkDRyp63MnxI2UMmcSifsmAsyydNi0dlyzTB2rzfw==
X-Received: by 10.55.174.3 with SMTP id x3mr13163245qke.162.1486137442715; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 07:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18d:4700:100:5426:28dc:a759:1449? ([2601:18d:4700:100:5426:28dc:a759:1449]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 11sm24667674qke.38.2017.02.03.07.57.22 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Feb 2017 07:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_325A6049-63F5-4841-90B3-A7D5B1E7C18C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BBB875EC-629F-4B43-B528-11F5299BFE71@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:57:21 -0500
Message-Id: <C4D4B9D7-3509-40CA-954E-67ECB18FC0CC@gmail.com>
References: <EE162993-F96F-458A-846C-D722EEF7A3B8@gmail.com> <BBB875EC-629F-4B43-B528-11F5299BFE71@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/banana/hcPquAYfBoX6nR6CwAdwbMSVOAc>
Cc: banana@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Banana] Reaching Consensus on Problem Statement
X-BeenThere: banana@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Bandwidth Aggregation for interNet Access: Discussion of bandwidth aggregation solutions based on IETF technologies." <banana.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/banana/>
List-Post: <mailto:banana@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana>, <mailto:banana-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:57:25 -0000

Hi Mirja,

> Also having an agreement for the problem is of course the first step. Howeve,r my understanding from the BoF was that there are already quite a bunch of people working on different solutions. So what’s really needed is agreement on the solution (and if there is one for all or different things or multiple solutions  are needed). Only if there is a first proposal for one (or more?) protocol(s) that this group would work on, it makes sense to think about chartering.

I agree that we also need to reach consensus, as a group, on how to move forward on one or more solutions, but I don’t think we can move forward on solutions until we have:

- Consensus that we have a well-understood problem statement, and
- Consensus that we think the problem is something it would be useful for the IETF to work on.

Once we have agreement on those things, we can discuss whether it makes sense to standardize only a single solution to this problem, or whether the trade-offs between different solutions mean that more than one solution may be needed for different deployment scenarios.

Does that make sense?

Margaret