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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------