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

Hi all,

As the author of the connect-ethernet draft, a couple of things.

1) Martin's description of our conversation is accurate; I've described my
draft as "adopted pending recharter," and if the recharter fails, so be it.
When we discussed it, I specifically asked for details in the most pedantic
terms. :-)

2) This draft's unpublished pre-00 text described CONNECT-L2. That method
plus a frame-type header would provide the necessary hooks for other drafts
to describe additional L2 tunneling protocols without overly expanding the
scope of this draft. I would be fine moving the draft(s) in that direction
if there is interest, though I don't expect to personally author any other
L2 protocol tunneling drafts. Nothing prevents others from writing, say, a
CONNECT-ATM draft, though I do see an appeal to future L2 tunneling MASQUE
work sharing an HTTP method rather than an explosion of CONNECT-FOO
methods, if the WG thinks that is reasonable.

-Alejandro

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:48 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
> --
> Masque mailing list
> Masque@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>