Re: Call for Papers: IAB Workshop on Stack Evolution in a Middlebox Internet (SEMI)

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ADE01A9030 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:43:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 PfGRSUoSdSb8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:43:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A7A91A86DF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:43:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2446; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417632197; x=1418841797; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=sidnj3+S8G+HI68brow0kjM3n3WJolqD0bTSZMazTjI=; b=UTkVBOxG7jHUG7bvER2kyNSTqJkktZql6sjxSz/6dxkIkfSjArpLMuYS jSNk7Rg8u3E15ZEJjg7aHRL5Hn2XFe5UCbdK7f/tzfhtOa4p1Q+dOYNNt 07QuOHezZq5nikHPe2yXUbTUPx7zL0oHFhohuxkJTQMlEsK3RkzmpbsBg o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArAEAAlZf1StJssW/2dsb2JhbABaDocnyVwCgSoBAQEBAX2EAgEBAQMBHQZVEQsOCgkWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAgBAYgxCcAmlkUBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEbkG2CcYFRAQSSBYFAhxSHG4x7gjWBBEA+gnUBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,509,1413244800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="255257242"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2014 18:43:15 +0000
Received: from [10.61.163.82] ([10.61.163.82]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB3IhEej012538; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:43:15 GMT
Message-ID: <547F59C1.1060107@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 19:43:13 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Call for Papers: IAB Workshop on Stack Evolution in a Middlebox Internet (SEMI)
References: <9D725DD0-7136-4D02-99E0-48E03C173C9E@iab.org> <BB616542-70E8-47F9-99E8-305AA63B45C9@iab.org> <5475A0A5.50105@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <547F14FF.9090600@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <547F14FF.9090600@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W8JlMaLveXrXk02lQpAGMROvWhl1NeFCB"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_wQ6bcP7MX8Zp1q1AhCC4u-o2jA
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:43:18 -0000

Ohta-san:

On 12/3/14, 2:49 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> This time to IETF list;
>
> As I wrote:
>
>> The problem, however, is that the review comment are so
>> surprising that the result of SEMI workshop is very simply
>> proven (see below) to be "incorrect and incomplete".
> are there anyone who argue against the proof?

Yes, because it's not proof.

>
> To explain it less formally without the end to end argument,
>
> According to RFC3424 written by IAB:
>
>     o  Shipping NATs often contain Application Layer Gateways (ALGs)
>        which attempt to be context-sensitive, depending on the source or
>        destination port number.  The behavior of the ALGs can be hard to
>        anticipate and these behaviors have not always been documented.
>
> but, CFP of SEMI2015 says:
>
>    Can common transport functionality and standardization help
>    application developers to implement and deploy such approaches
>    in today’s Internet?
>
> which means SEMI2015 has, quite seemingly, a prejudice to focus
> only on "common" and/or standardized, thus, well known, functionality
> of ALGs, ignoring undocumented ones.

That clearly wasn't our intent.  Rather, you will note that the text you
quote from the CFP is in the form of a question.  That is a good basis
for discussion, not a conclusion, as you assert.  Clearly the end to end
argument comes into play in that discussion.  It is not, however, the
beginning or end of the matter.

Eliot