Re: [Masque] Adoption call for "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic"

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Magnus,

WG adoption does not imply WG consensus. So yes, if this document is
adopted,
then that does not indicate that the WG has reached consensus on any of its
contents.

David

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:00 AM Magnus Westerlund <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> David,
>
> I hope that we can agee on that if adopting this document at this stage
> there
> will be no implication on any of the content in document having WG
> consensus. I
> rather see that the WG would discuss the use cases and we have a document
> where
> the general content would have WG consensus when adopting it.
> I think adopting a document just becasue we know we are going to need it is
> rushing thing for the wrong reasons. I rather adopt a document in 3 months
> time
> where we are agreeing more on the content.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 09:45 -0700, David Schinazi wrote:
> > Thank you for comments, Mirja, Spencer, and Magnus!
> >
> > If I may summarize them in the following bullet points:
> > - we should reach WG consensus on use-cases
> > - we should clarify the last use-case
> > - we should clarify which requirement relates to which use-case
> >
> > (There were also detailed comments on individual requirements that
> > would be better discussed on individual threads, or GitHub issues)
> >
> > I absolutely agree with these bullet points. As per our charter, the
> > goal of this entire draft is for us to reach WG consensus on
> > use-cases and requirements for IP proxying, before the WG starts
> > work on a solution. However, none of those comments justify
> > delaying adoption of the document. The call for adoption is there
> > to ensure there is WG interest in the draft, and that folks are willing
> > to review and comment - which your messages indicate! Adopting
> > the draft will actually facilitate answering the three points above,
> > since WG consensus is better reached on parts of WG documents,
> > as opposed to individual submissions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:43 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > So, just to start the discussion Magnus said we need to have (and I
> agree
> > > that we need to have it, whether before, or after, adoption),
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:27 AM Magnus Westerlund <
> > > magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Which of these requirements (in
> > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cms-masque-ip-proxy-reqs-01.txt)
> > >
> > > 3.1.  IP Session Establishment
> > > 3.2.  Proxying of IP packets
> > > 3.3.  Maximum Transmission Unit
> > > 3.4.  IP Assignment
> > > 3.5.  Route Negotiation
> > > 3.6.  Identity
> > > 3.7.  Transport Security
> > > 3.8.  Authentication
> > > 3.9.  Reliable Transmission of IP Packets
> > > 3.10.  Flow Control
> > > 3.11.  Indistinguishability
> > > 3.12.  Support HTTP/2 and HTTP/3
> > > 3.13.  Multiplexing
> > > 3.14.  Load balancing
> > > 3.15.  Extensibility
> > >
> > > belongs to each use case?
> > >
> > > > 2.1.  Consumer VPN
> > > > 2.2.  Point to Point Connectivity
> > > > 2.3.  Point to Network Connectivity
> > > > 2.4.  Network to Network Connectivity
> > >
> > > (I'm happy to have this conversation in Github, but Magnus said we
> needed to
> > > have it here, so I'm following his excellent leadership)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Spencer
> --
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Networks, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Mobile [phone]
> Torshamnsgatan 23           |
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>