Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Fri, 22 May 2015 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF081B2BEE for <hops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 SsOCOh3casaJ for <hops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx144.netapp.com (mx144.netapp.com [216.240.21.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02DB81AD36F for <hops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,475,1427785200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="44497875"
Received: from hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.38]) by mx144-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2015 07:06:15 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.34) by hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:06:15 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.34]) by hioexcmbx01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.34]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:06:15 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Thread-Topic: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG
Thread-Index: AQHQlIB3N4briqkfT0238Ir58nYNJZ2IcLaAgAAHJICAAAVrAA==
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:06:14 +0000
Message-ID: <11548E99-061E-454D-8014-9FA4B5D620FF@netapp.com>
References: <A8A13A5E-ECF7-475D-A18B-E78E409C16AA@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <6A2D3D6E-672B-40D9-9FA8-2D8C5A931461@netapp.com> <247E1336-C757-43C6-8D3F-75EA2B91FDB0@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <247E1336-C757-43C6-8D3F-75EA2B91FDB0@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2100)
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1366DEAA-FE1D-4A25-B13E-5E4FE343731C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hops/_uItNVgINA8QDdT0MUzmH4IKXRI>
Cc: "hops@ietf.org" <hops@ietf.org>, Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG
X-BeenThere: hops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Measuring deployability of new transport protocols <hops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hops>, <mailto:hops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hops/>
List-Post: <mailto:hops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops>, <mailto:hops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 14:11:19 -0000

Hi,

On 2015-5-22, at 15:46, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> 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