Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next steps
Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 15:33 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 76BE7120341 for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bgP3z5ET-N6C for <loops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0217120383 for <loops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id d24so44916557ljg.8 for <loops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0+IWGYpE5ofA1aIAz8+HAZQH3g8fAkPgUdfnJZdE/V0=; b=MweVGkjpWL5ibAP1RAcng8sihB7ZgE2feJrkjX3gDwDujfgZpvEaRQDV0OaY4PsZJj eUjwZ6VIPkNByyefxONRDukzNWVamMHH3OF/ksreyDOAZAvUpJIbZXl9sp1P5H4PR3Kc zHjceYgR+7ZTZjTUZDCsfq/hrJf7eUPjMPYhkBHl62IeYFd556ql0NIYkbhkH/QF5imC KTgn1wIfdeGyA6oUJYG2Hae9a/+WGmg1xzt5QWnQRTDCiFX40rzCiUn0/dn13ddVEPgQ XT9+P+dQ9Bu1x0ZHNyTu2oeXZ7eDzXFmEJTvxXCUAzLvWoKtw8X7bWNuvazl/sit3evQ lJRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0+IWGYpE5ofA1aIAz8+HAZQH3g8fAkPgUdfnJZdE/V0=; b=Sdey7/79UgwsWIAnu/Rr71UBtfJ2WwAu/mVsiZNOVzeICBMHEXoAtdunCfBJU0Nj05 /nm71eBz6Ic3KvtPe5oZlqeyGPhqQCdtLBk+jP1THk8LS1WogkOV3h3XjPKlWKHhK0fr gtuYCArDyhfAhIumpjGiVKyzHB9e7MKKXddOgoBgFGeN8/3q9dZcg2ZHyYUZNbPziUjW FPBzigahSgOk1+h+yEyr/3hZ0aqJvMiCMWoQGLYIzmM1toLVyV4Z9Qdx+cs+6WYl5kZt m7dRQXIj9SX5M7wi3xWnZ5r/H87ihEeBzeZ4MpKff2SKKt3sRts56VklwCwgDKqeqR0M qS3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPsMgtN1pe7Q47GX7PKgpyW0wGybIdpDG6uKGpMtmlPNf5hGbw L1luf+Oy4aN+Tni6hCBF+7Jz3WRGpqzWEg8qTwQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqykn35triTzEIC2LaGFTrFMFAuFNvREafEU5LiS716fB/lN+DfQD7JQ1p0LDLk/Q7cgAHADzv1Is1OsftBHu2k=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:96c3:: with SMTP id d3mr323569ljj.68.1563982402993; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKKJt-cwTUkwcN5vCjFkQ7uuZPxm3JSMfajb=WPo_=E+CBxmRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPjWiCRVaU3W8QuXdyXaDv5KmAPhGq51g5_jT+ym0mxvBv3F0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPjWiCRVaU3W8QuXdyXaDv5KmAPhGq51g5_jT+ym0mxvBv3F0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:32:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-f+L4mDX=XpL9k4d+72VWeOgv7s4s+3PozvBGLoXWaZvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, IAB IAB <iab@iab.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, loops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090c2ba058e6f0728"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/loops/fD-SW4M_QTHBHb_6k4wAXAlvO-o>
Subject: Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next steps
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:33:29 -0000
Marie-Jose, On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:30 AM Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com> wrote: > There was no Marie-Jean follow up. It was only me :) > My apologies for horrible mental pattern matching! It was definitely you ;-) Best regards, Spencer Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D. Research Affiliate, MIT Media Laboratory mariejose@mjmontpetit.com mariejo@mit.edu On July 24, 2019 at 11:24:43 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF ( spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: > Hi, Magnus, > > Ole and I wanted to let you know what things looked like to us as > co-chairs. > > We are copying the mailing list, to provide transparency for the LOOPS > community. Wes Hardaker suggested that we copy the IAB because at least two > IAB folk were covering the BOF, and would be sending write-ups to the IAB > and IESG afterwards. > > (Dear LOOPists - you may wish to remove the IAB from any follow-up e-mail > on the mailing list. Interested IAB members are subscribed to LOOPS, or > will be very soon. Uninterested IAB members don't need more e-mail from us!) > > First, I'd like to thank you (and Suresh) for bringing in an INT co-chair. > That was extremely helpful. > > Draft minutes have been posted at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-105-loops/. But, to summarize > ... > > We asked these questions at the beginning of the BOF: > > Chairs: What sort of people were in the room? > > - 1/3 transport people > - 1/3 encaps people > - 1/10 apps people > - 2 ops people > - 5 measurements people > - 1.5 security people > - 10-12 people on products/systems they do some form of enhancement. > - Who has read the problem draft? 1/3 room > > We think that holding a BOF was a good decision, based on the number of > people (even in the room) working on products and systems in this space. > > We think that holding a non-working group-forming BOF was a good decision, > because many of the people who have been working in this space haven't been > talking to each other (which makes products that don't interoperate or > provide the same services in the same way - same as our previous experience > with NATs). Providing a place for them to talk was very helpful. > > Ole was impressed at the low number of tourists in the room. > > The key points from the BOF proponents were > > - First, do no harm - measure what you're doing, and adjust what > you're doing based on feedback, including turning your optimizations off > entirely. > - Do local repair between LOOPS endpoints, not involving hosts (at > least, not now) > - Multipath; Measurement; MTU-handling; Encapsulation/Tunnels were out > of scope (at least for now) > - Use FEC for local repair > - Do The Right Thing in tuning FEC usage based on feedback > - In some cases, use limited retransmission for local repair, probably > if FEC is not sufficient > > The key points from discussion were > > - Marie-Jose Montpetit, co-chair of Network Coding Research Group, > said that they have much research that is applicable for FEC. Marie-Jean > has followed up on the mailing list after the BOF. > - It's not clear how much vendors in this space want a standardized > solution, but it's more likely that operators will want that > - Multiple people have concerns about masking signals about actual > losses and adverse interactions between multiple levels of optimizations. > These are things to watch out for in future work > > Hums at the end of the session were > > - There are multiple problems involved here, so a key next step will > be teasing those problems apart and identifying what the IETF (and IRTF) > has already done, that is applicable, and could be reused with no changes, > or extended/modified as part of LOOPS, and what problems still remain > unaddressed and clearly require protocol work in the IETF > - Colin Perkins said there were big parts of the LOOPS problem set > that are engineering now (Spencer and Ole happen to agree) > - Andrew McGregor said that LOOPS would benefit from additional > research (Spencer and Ole happen to agree, but think there is enough > engineering work that waiting for more research to charter work isn't > necessary) > - Magnus asked if standardization in this space would be useful or > beneficial. Many hums YES, some hums NO. > > We will send our recommendations on how to follow up to the LOOPS mailing > list separately, so that the discussion happens in the right place. If IESG > and IAB people have opinions about that, subscribing would be good :-) > > We can imagine that work in this space would result in > standards-conformant products, but we can also imagine that work in this > space would result in significantly improved proprietary products, or > standards-conformant products with significant extensions. A lot depends on > the people doing the work. > > Thanks for the opportunity to serve the community in this way. > > Spencer and Ole, as co-chairs for the BOF > -- > LOOPS mailing list > LOOPS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/loops >
- [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next steps Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Michael Welzl
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Liyizhou
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Emmanuel Lochin
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Wesley Eddy
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Wesley Eddy
- Re: [LOOPS] [nwcrg] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOO… Stuart William Card
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Michael Welzl
- Re: [LOOPS] [nwcrg] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOO… Colin Perkins
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Wesley Eddy
- Re: [LOOPS] [nwcrg] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOO… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [LOOPS] [nwcrg] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOO… Colin Perkins
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Michael Welzl
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Colin Perkins
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Colin Perkins
- Re: [LOOPS] BOF co-chairs thinking on LOOPS next … Marie-Jose Montpetit