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

[Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>]

Magnus,

As noted in the kickoff email, the purpose was to "start an adoption call for this document in its current form as a starting point." We expect the document contents may change as we work towards consensus, and that's fine! We're just getting started.

Best,
Chris

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, at 3:00 AM, Magnus Westerlund 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]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>