Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Fri, 22 May 2015 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 BB0B61A01BA for <hops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 p1wspFXF-j-w for <hops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D319F1A0163 for <hops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2015 07:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.98] (kuwa.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.98]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AD1645D10; Fri, 22 May 2015 10:43:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:43:42 -0400
Message-ID: <8F66DB52-438A-4F4B-8BD1-666391F28DA9@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <555F3F7D.6090806@it.uc3m.es>
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> <11548E99-061E-454D-8014-9FA4B5D620FF@netapp.com> <555F3F7D.6090806@it.uc3m.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate Trial (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hops/ym709vVwe_gjFhUoydurETpmQbc>
Cc: hops@ietf.org
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 14:43:55 -0000


On 22 May 2015, at 10:38, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> 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).

agree.  others I can think of, such as multi path tcp, many rai 
protocols,


> 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.

not. count me in! deployability has not been so much considered. Many 
protocols have been designed and then a fallback to http/443 was added 
later which makes the protocol brittle.

Marc.

>
>
>
>
> El 22/05/15 a las 16:06, Eggert, Lars escribió:
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hops mailing list
>> hops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops
>
> _______________________________________________
> hops mailing list
> hops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops