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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:29 PM David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> (To state the obvious: as one of the authors, I support adoption)
>
> I strongly disagree with Ben's suggestion to use the state "Adopted for WG
> info only".
> I've pasted the definition for that state from RFC 6174 here:
>
>    The "Adopted for WG Info Only" state describes a document that
>    contains useful information for the WG that adopted it, but the
>    document is not intended to be published as an RFC.  The WG will not
>    actively develop the contents of the I-D or progress it for
>    publication as an RFC.  The only purpose of the I-D is to provide
>    information for internal use by the WG.
>
> Source: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6174#section-4.2.3
>

I think there is value in publishing this document as RFC,
> and our charter specifically states "The working group will first
> deliver [...] a requirements document for IP proxying."
> My understanding is that, in that sentence, "deliver" a
> document means publish an RFC.
>

I agree with Ben on status. I do not think that publishing this as an RFC
provides much value. Can you describe what value you think it provides
other than guiding the WG towards a solution document.

As far as the charter goes, the situation seems somewhat confusing in that
the charter lists three documents but only has two milestones:

   The group will focus on a limited set of client-initiated services: (1)
UDP CONNECT and (2) IP proxying.
   Server-initiated services are   out of scope. The working group will
first deliver a protocol solution for UDP
   CONNECT and a requirements document for IP proxying. Once both are
complete, the working group will
   focus on a protocol solution for IP proxying.
..

   Last Submit an informational IP Proxying over MASQUE document
   Next Submit a standards track UDP CONNECT document

I suppose one could argue that the "Last" refers to the requirements
document, but given the sequencing above, it would then not be last, so I
think one could also read this as saying that the IP Proxying protocol
document is to be Information. In any case, I don't think we can consider
the charter dispositive here.



-Ekr


David
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 7:20 AM Ben Schwartz <bemasc=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I support adoption.  (Per [1], I would suggest using the document state
>> "Adopted for WG info only".)
>>
>> I would like to see a requirement for compatibility with existing IETF IP
>> tunnel layers like PPP (and IPCP/IPV6CP).  Ideally, we could avoid
>> reinventing these protocols, and just carry them over HTTP.  Failing that,
>> I'd like to make sure that we can at least expose a PPP-compatible
>> interface around MASQUE-IP, or provide instructions for chaining PPP and
>> MASQUE-IP links with a minimum of mismatch.
>>
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:31 AM Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the goals on our charter is producing a requirements document for
>>> IP proxying. draft-cms-masque-ip-proxy-reqs is one attempt at accomplishing
>>> this goal. Based on feedback received during the last meeting and the
>>> document revision since, we'd like to start an adoption call for this
>>> document in its current form as a starting point.
>>>
>>> The document may be found here:
>>>
>>>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cms-masque-ip-proxy-reqs/
>>>
>>> And the source may be found here:
>>>
>>>    https://github.com/DavidSchinazi/masque-drafts
>>>
>>> This call for adoption will conclude on September 23.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris and Eric
>>>
>>> --
>>> Masque mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>>>
>> --
>> Masque mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>>
> --
> Masque mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>