Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG

Mirja Kühlewind <> Fri, 22 May 2015 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E951A0354 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FcrBJ-3vXNOm for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9FCE1B2C10 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BF5D9303; Fri, 22 May 2015 16:40:02 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id w30v0P2sm9eR; Fri, 22 May 2015 16:40:02 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E893D9302; Fri, 22 May 2015 16:40:02 +0200 (MEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:40:01 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Brian Trammell <>
Subject: Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Measuring deployability of new transport protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:40:07 -0000

Hi Lars again,

one more point: it’s not only these four groups. 

There was quite a large number of people at the BarBoF and we had some really good discussion. Initially the goal for the barBoF was not at all to start a research group. We actually only wanted to find a way to integrate passive measurements into e.g. browser traffic as those application often already perform certain fallbacks and so on to find a working connection. In these cases it would have been simply nice to collect ‚reports‘ about failures that were experienced in operation. This would be a much more limited scope and would not need a research group. 

However, there was much broader interest in middlebox measurements at the barBoF and we do think that it would be nice to have an official discuss forum for this work. We’ve only discussed with the mention people to far to organize a potential first meeting and I think we already have more people that are interest and will to present something that we have time in the first meeting. Further as the goal is to make measurement more comparable by using a common data format, we see it as our task to actively invite further people doing measurements and therefore provide a connection between research and the IETF.

> Am 22.05.2015 um 16:06 schrieb Eggert, Lars <>om>:
> Hi,
> On 2015-5-22, at 15:46, Mirja Kühlewind <> wrote:
>> there are people from RIPE who are interested in this work and were already at the BarBoF. Further we are also in contact which the people from CAIDA. And, as you can see on the agenda, we are also talking to Google and Akamai with people who were also at the BarBoF
> so that's promising, but not actually a large number of folks. I wonder if a discussion among four groups really needs an RG established. Isn't this something that might as well be handled  ad hoc?
> A second concern I have is that the topic here is fairly narrow in scope ("let's discuss data around how bad middleboxes break things"), and rather short-lived (i.e., once that is done, the group is done). The IRTF tries to charter groups that are long-lived and try to tackle problem areas of substantial size, and I wonder if this is the case here.
> (Since I was not at the bar BOF, I may be fundamentally misunderstanding something about this proposal. I'm only going on what is in the charter text proposal.)
> Lars