Re: [Int-area] FYI/Feedback for draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps-00

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 24 March 2020 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B443A0496; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 mcm8HptnPDCK; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3153A0442; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B65548048; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 23:33:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id C084B440040; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 23:33:01 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 23:33:01 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps@ietf.org" <draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200324223301.GC49016@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20200324020956.GA28168@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <57A23F79-2686-4A4D-A175-7D33F3D8CCAB@cisco.com> <20200324175226.GB49016@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <78D0C85B-0D3D-4CFA-8CEB-8B8257CAAA13@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <78D0C85B-0D3D-4CFA-8CEB-8B8257CAAA13@fugue.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/M_f4-3gECwPmVjPInjEDWh_BzWk>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] FYI/Feedback for draft-bryant-arch-fwd-layer-ps-00
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:33:10 -0000

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 01:56:01PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2020, at 1:52 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > But without a longer term architectural track doing work like this
> > in parallel to current WGs, it will be difficult for the IETF to really drive
> > innovation at the network / forwarding layer longer term.
> 
> Is this something we are even competent to do?

Fom the know-how of the participants, i think so. For example the
core issue i am interested in, how to build and later standardize
more extensible reuseable forwarding plane packet headers through
programmable forwarding planes, that i something where AFAIK a
good amount of participants in vendors working with HW development
got insight.  Likewise now also more and more reserchers building
P4 prototypes of recent IETF protocols.  And learning limitation of P4.

That of course is just my favourite pet sub-topic. When it comes
to the evolution of "Internet" as global inter-AS paths to
metropolitan network connecting edge-clouds with subscribers
that are as varied as 5/6G towers, IoT devices and humans, i
think we also have a lot of experience.

And so on.

What we do not have is i think a strategy to coalesce discussions
about this. Eg: the gap between IRTF and IETF if you ask me.

Cheers
    Toerless