Re: [Masque] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-masque-02-01: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

Speaking as an enthusiast, I haven't seen anyone in the WG interested in a
more generic "any L2" solution as opposed to scoping it to IEEE 802 MAC
frames. While I agree that in theory "a broader scope may take some more
effort but could be worthwhile", in practice no one is interested in doing
that extra work. I don't have any problem with the IESG making the charter
scope more broad to facilitate doing this later, but I would object to the
IESG requiring us to build a generic solution just because it could
hypothetically be useful.

David

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:29 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hello Martin,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your reply and your suggestions.
>
>
>
> About 1), while I agree that having a constrained scope is useful to focus
> the work, I think that transporting Ethernet frame or any 802 frame or even
> good old PPP or any L2 frame is very similar especially if constrained to a
> point-to-point link. I.e., a broader scope may take some more effort but
> could be worthwhile.
>
>
>
> -éric
>
>
>
> *From: *iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Martin Duke <
> martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, 26 February 2024 at 17:28
> *To: *Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "masque-chairs@ietf.org" <
> masque-chairs@ietf.org>, "masque@ietf.org" <masque@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Masque] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on
> charter-ietf-masque-02-01: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Hi Eric,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
>
>
> 1) My intent has always been to constrain the scope of the MASQUE work as
> much as possible, rather than be more generic.
>
>
>
> 2) Yes, you're right. intarea is already on the coordination list for IP
> proxying but I'll add it for connect-ethernet.
>
>
>
> The WG did a consensus call and it's reflected in the datatracker as
> adopted. However, every time this has come up I have made it abundantly
> clear to the authors that this is provisional on a recharter, and that
> the work is lower-priority than the other chartered work. The authors
> understand that if there are fundamental objections from the community, the
> work will be abandoned.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:41 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-masque-02-01: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-masque/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proxying Ethernet frames over MASQUE is a good idea, and I am supportive.
> Please consider the following comments as a way to improve the project.
>
> 1) why limiting to Ethernet only ? Why not trying to be more generic (at
> least
> 802.11 frames but also any layer-2 PDU) ? Possibly with other I-Ds
>
> 2) beyond coordination with IEEE (or other layer-2 SDO), should intarea WG
> also
> be consulted (as it covers sub-IP layers) ?
>
> About draft-ietf-masque-connect-ethernet, I am really surprised to see that
> this I-D has been adopted in contradiction to the current charter. I would
> also
> suggest that the document borrows from L2TPv3 and others rather than only
> from
> connect-udp as layer-2 is a different beast.
>
> Hope this helps this good idea
>
>
>
> --
> Masque mailing list
> Masque@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>
> --
> Masque mailing list
> Masque@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>