Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG

Mirja Kühlewind <> Fri, 22 May 2015 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8501ACE4A for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:27:11 -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 UxxaBbBNsykG for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B0D71ACCC7 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45601D9303; Fri, 22 May 2015 16:27:08 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fYBGsjH+UKCK; Fri, 22 May 2015 16:27:08 +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 DD8CBD9302; Fri, 22 May 2015 16:27:07 +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 16:27:07 +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 14:27:11 -0000

Hi Lars,

thanks, that’s absolutely in line with what we have in mind. We see a to of activity and interest at the moment and potential for a longer-term research group. However, you can never say if people will be able to actually release data and how and so we would like to have a few meeting and see if we ca come up with continuous work we would like to do here.


> Am 22.05.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Eggert, Lars <>om>:
> Hi again,
> I should probably clarify that I'm *not* pushing back on you guys having a meeting in Prague and possibly later IETFs to see if a community forms. I will definitely approve rooms.
> Take my comments as early feedback on the charter text you sent. The actual chartering discussion will happen after you've tried to meet a few times and we see what has happened in those meetings.
> Lars
> On 2015-5-22, at 16:06, Eggert, Lars <> wrote:
>> 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