Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG

marcelo bagnulo braun <> Fri, 22 May 2015 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580A31A023E for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.831
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.831 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9R8kfVs74fk6 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CB91A0354 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so49646869wic.0 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mcYcR6ZyR5+Gw+kyQ3dVFua29BccRwm1b4min+gmgLs=; b=e5uEOQ1j7UklcqWZV4Os18dVAAsSRPu8RAk8ELor8NANPoDv0CsRC/5NZR32xsXutd /1LdJMyVRWNOirCFZqznJRlUdZSDgeNfic2yPLIFYk5TpEGXxg/eUeCkM07N26qJXBk2 p77GAJiCwdYxJHTUwa5ulh44upchAnrTHWvJabxvOV6g4zIQeF3hLkFoIQHJpZXXHkXw B23iHA0SPxIAc67ZYW2d/4rP7C4x9N+737PsLFAZwYj5ZUazUleHFMqZ86L2MoDRvmHJ nhuCXspKefUQQxfgJD6M2JAiiVS2h5wxDIZZ/BfW7NQSXANU4kzjakC3DiFlnCA4Sx+I i8aA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkNS5AwgmF1hLK+Y2BhPuyIrfAkJ9L3PWCgDlr4r2JJgQ2CQPNGJAec8nxTOnLd3z3770EM
X-Received: by with SMTP id ld5mr16141805wjc.14.1432305546402; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Macintosh-2.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x3sm8010792wiy.20.2015. for <> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 May 2015 07:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:38:53 +0200
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
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 14:39:11 -0000

I dont think this should be a short lived effort.
I mean, at the IETF there is plenty of times that we try to design a 
protocol or protocol extension and we dont really have the data to 
perform an informed decision.  think the HOPS RG could be a starting 
point for many protocol design efforts.
For instance, in the TCPINC BOF, the question about whether encrypted 
TCP connection would fly over different ports was raised and there was 
no data available. (and it was a fundamental question to understand if 
the whole effort was worthwhile)
Similar questions now are raised in TCPM when designing the extended 
option format. And again, there is little data around (at least for some 
aspects of it).
It would be nice to have a place where people that want to work on 
design can gather data about what works and what doesnt. It would be 
nice if that was the HOPS RG, i guess.

In other words, one way of doing this is for the HOPS RG t be a venue 
for people with interesting questions and people who want to measure 
intersting things (or for people with interesting questions and people 
who has data that can help them answer the questions)

So, imho, something like HOPS is really missing in the IETF protocol 
design approach. But maybe it is just me.

El 22/05/15 a las 16:06, Eggert, Lars escribió:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> hops mailing list