Re: [Model-t] Restarting model-t

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:00 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> At the IAB Open meeting during IETF 109, Stephen gave a little update on
> model-t and suggested that we should either figure out why it's stuck or get
> it back in motion in the new year.
>
> I'm advocating for getting things going again. There's demonstrable interest
> and some good, potential outputs in the description of the program. As a
> reminder, some of the drafts that are targeted at the model-t discussion
> include:
>
> draft-thomson-tmi
> draft-mcfadden-smart-endpoint-taxonomy-for-cless
> draft-mcfadden-smart-threat-changes
> draft-lazanski-users-threat-model-t
> draft-lazanski-protocol-sec-design-model-t
> draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t
> draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-7258-additions
> draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-3552-additions
> draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-redux
>
> It seems to me that it would be good to schedule up a call with those
> interested and figure out a way to move things forward. If available cycles
> is the underlying problem, I'm willing to help out with organization.
>
> Any thoughts here?

My two cents as a lurker and occasional gadfly: it's hard to have a
successful program when there isn't agreement on the problem. That's
particularly true when layer 8 issues get involved. As a result I
think a good number of the drafts are talking past each other. It's
difficult to get a broader consensus by discussing these drafts
individually as a result. It might be worth focusing on narrower parts
of the broader agenda and dealing with them separately, rather than
boil the ocean.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd



--
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim