IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020

Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> Fri, 05 June 2020 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <liyizhou@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: loops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2543A1119 for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 voP5apjg4Hk0 for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02003A1118 for <loops@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml744-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 71EF6AA6D38A4F2DDADD for <loops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 02:34:16 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) by lhreml744-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.194) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 02:34:15 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:34:13 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:34:13 +0800
From: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: "loops@ietf.org" <loops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020
Thread-Index: AQHWOgVxQq/LO9mduU2EPnpoRG0/ZKjHrIKAgAGMpvA=
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 01:34:13 +0000
Message-ID: <39200c82bec9474bb8cbe291add77eb1@huawei.com>
References: <614826114.20890951590412654399.JavaMail.nobody@rln2rmd101.webex.com> <D59C1BF0-443D-4068-ADCF-D501C24F0AA6@tzi.org> <6967F8C0-6A4E-4C6B-AA49-B2652DB616A3@tzi.org> <1F57EAE7-DA4F-4E09-9991-01DAD588851C@tzi.org> <99F6ECE1-CF93-45B4-8CA5-74401283AE4C@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <99F6ECE1-CF93-45B4-8CA5-74401283AE4C@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.13.7]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/loops/HSEnSqr-iL1JK3pGNg92UxsOaro>
Subject: Re: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020
X-BeenThere: loops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Local Optimizations on Path Segments <loops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/loops/>
List-Post: <mailto:loops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/loops>, <mailto:loops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 01:34:19 -0000

Hi Mirja and Carsten,

I presented LOOPS in NVO3 WG in IETF 106. At that time, the main focus was to give a briefing on the problems to solve and what transport feature design (choice of ACK/NACK, timeout, re-sequencing or not, cc interaction, etc) to be expected. The encapsulation format was not the top priority back then.

LOOPS's key feature is more transport mechanism oriented, and I think it should be independent from different encap formats, especially for the common fields. 
Probably it would be good to talk to NVO3 regarding Geneve encapsulation again after this charter proposal discussion.

Thanks,
Yizhou
 

-----Original Message-----
From: LOOPS [mailto:loops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 5:34 PM
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: loops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020

Hi Carsten,

I saw that the charter is now focusing on Geneve as the first and premier mapping. There is an active working group for this protocol which usually is interested in taking on new extension within their group. Was this work presented there already? Would probably be good to start a draft for that extensions as well!

Mirja


> On 4. Jun 2020, at 02:16, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> Thank you all for participating in the May 26 side meeting.
> I have updated the charter proposal with the results of the discussion:
> 
> https://github.com/loops-wg/charter
> 
> This reflects embracing ECN both for the end-to-end flows and for the path segment, as well as cleaning up the milestones to a single deliverable (which might or might not be multiple documents; I don’t think the charter needs to nail this down).  Goals for FEC support are scaled down, but FEC stays in as part of the first deliverable.
> 
> I have also moved the “discussion” section to a separate file.
> 
> Please have a timely look as the charter will be one of the inputs to the BOF process — we need to have a solid BOF proposal by June 12.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> -- 
> LOOPS mailing list
> LOOPS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/loops

-- 
LOOPS mailing list
LOOPS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/loops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email