[clue] Publishing CLUE protocol as Experimental?

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 21 December 2018 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D611130EB8 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:10:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 Tl_02uTMjv7c for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 5E62C130EB3 for <clue@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBLNAIKd057563 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:10:21 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1545433821; bh=OThfYXAkW0FT7fklWfGW4Qpr2g8rK4adgn6YTz2pdC8=; h=To:Cc:From:Subject:Date; b=YSJM/l3Uvm+awhBnzsZZUi3vlSjI08PDU73JFR7I4FaEKQJ85Icfr+x3+NT1Y5wo2 6nUb4rtwJN4gG8PtAjy8lKcBha7Ne0cKwlXQgMk/UKUj2371AFfHN1RdQKS5+qoJkR 0ltUYp6KVjJ0XNQllVX+hjuQp23VOMYRY2+LGmww=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: "clue@ietf.org" <clue@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-clue-protocol.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <371a0f51-3919-8ae2-c782-e51ce4fc6e2f@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:10:12 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/1o3-x4T_J9lZGp50Z4rOIpmsE60>
Subject: [clue] Publishing CLUE protocol as Experimental?
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/clue/>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:10:23 -0000

CLUE working group and document authors:

During IESG evaluation, Benjamin and Ben raised some issues around the 
state machine design, timeouts, and interaction with the various SIP 
state machines. While these could probably be addressed by adding 
substantial new text and a handful of new states and supervisory timers 
to the CLUE state machines, as well as including additional detail about 
the interaction between such state machines and the SIP state machines, 
it's not clear to me that the CLUE working group has the kind of energy 
necessary for that kind of refinement at this point in its lifecycle.

An alternate path that both Ben and Benjamin would be okay with is 
publication of the protocol mechanism as Experimental rather than 
Standards Track, in order to allow the collection of operational 
experience around implementing and deploying the protocol with the state 
machines as specified. This would be sufficient to satisfy their 
concerns around the currently-defined state machine and would allow 
publication of the CLUE documents. (Note that, due to the relationship 
between clue-protocol, clue-signaling, and clue-datachannel, this would 
also result in the publication of clue-signaling and clue-datachannel as 
experimental.)

Recognizing that many people are out of the office during this time of 
year, I'd like to ask that anyone who has comments regarding the 
proposal to move the core CLUE documents to Experimental status respond 
before Friday, January 18th. Thanks.

/a