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

[Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>]

The adoption call is now complete. It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft and continue its development as a WG Support Document [1]. Authors, can you please submit draft-ietf-masque-ip-proxy-reqs-00 at your earliest convenience?

Thanks to everyone who chimed in and provided feedback! We look forward to continued discussions on the use cases and requirements. 

Best,
Chris and Eric

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/eLjdyqM_z-Gs4dmXuOFfvBSMyt8/

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020, at 4:54 PM, Eric Kinnear wrote:
> Hi all, 
> 
> Thanks to everyone who has responded to this call for adoption as a 
> support document. We have both positive and negative viewpoints being 
> expressed — thanks for the valuable discussion so far. 
> Ideally, we’d like to see a few more people chime in with their views 
> and the discussion to continue towards a position from which we can 
> move forwards.
> 
> To aid in that, we are extending the adoption call for an additional 
> two weeks, ending October 7.
> We’re especially interested in focus on what should be covered by the 
> requirements document and if this document can be used as a starting 
> point to get there.
> 
> Thanks, 
> Eric and Chris
> 
> 
> > On Sep 25, 2020, at 12:32 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Chris,
> > 
> > Understood. My personal view is that this adoption call was unnecessary rushing
> > things and that we don't know if the document is a suitable starting point until
> > we have had some more discussion. 
> > 
> > But lets get on discussing its content rather than the formalia. 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Magnus
> > 
> > On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 05:04 -0700, Christopher Wood wrote:
> >> 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]
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > -- 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Magnus Westerlund 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Networks, Ericsson Research
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ericsson AB                 | Mobile [phone]
> > Torshamnsgatan 23           |
> > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Masque mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>