Re: [nbs] NBS and TCP connection identification

"David Harrington" <> Fri, 01 October 2010 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387EA3A6C08 for <>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.308
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NAxTZkB5uYdV for <>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDF93A6833 for <>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id DPoi1f0060ldTLk5EWg4Bg; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:40:04 +0000
Received: from 23FX1C1 ([]) by with comcast id DWg31f0092JQnJT3QWg3n8; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:40:04 +0000
From: "David Harrington" <>
To: "'Erik Nordmark'" <>, "'Javier Ubillos'" <>
References: <> <> <> <1285067950.2068.59.camel@bit> <> <1285148838.2211.60.camel@bit> <> <1285251552.2225.109.camel@bit> <>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4E965913B64243EF8EE5586B630542FD@23FX1C1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
Thread-index: Acthh15BOxrb7e5WTuexaETgA49WfAACDGsQ
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: 'Christian Vogt' <>,
Subject: Re: [nbs] NBS and TCP connection identification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Name based sockets discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:39:17 -0000


I am now the Responsible AD for this BOF. 
Let me just inject some guidance which will help the proponents
prepare for the BOF.

I am in the process of finding chairs for the BOF. I am trying to
locate two people with good IETF process knowledge and experience, to
organize/run the BOF. I have sent requests to the TSV Directorate and
the TSV chairs. I am also open to other volunteers. I have
deliberately avoided the leading technical proponents like Christan
and Javier because I want them to be able to focus on their proposals
and the technical feedback they get from the list, not BOF
organizational issues.

If anybody on this list has not yet read "Considerations for Having a
Successful Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) Session" (RFC5434) I recommend you
do so. Some of this information is most relevant for the chairs, but
it would help the chairs if the other proponents involved understand
what the chairs are trying to accomplish.

The IESG and IAB think some of the proposals are worthwhile but are
not yet convinced the industry would implement and deploy such
standards, and are not yet convinced some other aspects of the
proposed work are justified by its benefits, achievable within the
IETF, and deployable in a reasonable timeframe. We are looking for
feedback from the community on these proposals, and their support for
such work.

>From my perspective, given the feedback from the IESG and IAB, I do
not see a WG being formed after Beijing. If the BOF in Beijing is
successful at demonstrating community interest and and understanding
of the problems to be solved, a second BOF will likely be needed to
develop a well-focused charter with achieveable milestones to create a

The goal of the BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement

      - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the
        group to attempt solving it.

      - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on
        problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).

      - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
        is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
        what it won't) 

      - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
        proposed documents) are the right set.

	- that the industry would be likely to implement and deploy
the specific deliverables.

	- that the migration from existing deployed technologies to
the proposed new technologies
	  is manageable. I recommend reading "What Makes For a
Successful Protocol?" (RFC 5218).

Of lesser importance (but not unimportant) for this BOF:

	- having a fully-detailed and word-perfect charter 

	- what the actual deliverables will be (i.e., how many drafts
and what each will contain)

      - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
        having completing the deliverables in its charter in a timely
	  Don't worry too much about defining specific milestones, but
you should provide
	  estimates for whether a deliverable will take 1 year, 3
years or 5 years to finish.

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area (preferred for ietf)
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)