Re: [Plus] Status of PLUS

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911AC1297EA for <plus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wmlZzEusFTd for <plus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F63129435 for <plus@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id v200so20014030ywc.3 for <plus@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NQCAif6Z8QD9QJbm20S+ge2pbNlO19W9DAvdVlTakPM=; b=YsJYttbbQ0cpHFKyaoY8IsGuceZCTIM1ECWSty9EqtGJLc9q7uzaL1NcyYxF+lHc50 6ocmloWDeRSU+Jrf+GhnK7vXHzomcwExXMY5FLHy2mtyR4ytqhLyYS4dd/TejlErrGNu WrcJS2cNXfmcjQQwttME/fP+33FMeqRjsl7rIODYIUahu01GVmjafuyltuKtORpOw4we L4fvzIHHuYYKSZJpMhRnWFqeuD0+rjFQNOxz0amQQ/CssvGSCzfxf353Y+2OOygP9N7X puHjnphxwjyG6932JNeGNgzkYEJcDAiQy68boyx9l7eV74zedfU0Hooke2DKDwNECb1f Zfsg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NQCAif6Z8QD9QJbm20S+ge2pbNlO19W9DAvdVlTakPM=; b=URnCeTcmUjKk4MtXloUBm3mhiis0C3erowwDh1H4ZKqOT/ThpkATUIogjWQlWtNPGW E9DXbk9yBwaD6bHr6NnKz7zuUxbEhRu9byUrQo5QBbCWjn2XoTY+Cv4LGyBsk81xA9SQ gW2nDlWJnOp5pVEPrQvOfrzE7gs37S/E4XNTLCg7osFOjPMfrr3Y8CPk8Y8qiwM59D9u qaosavhIqxt8cNfyICmyYkYnLAAcGpetNYvVecamkTCnvNWUQAavfN7pD/WOn73omkZO adFEoAW8fpZVynQd2tqblVOVs5r0OQPoxZH7nfyL8f6zau23sEsdisheoKHDHMuowYsC 1UJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lD/XGPPS9g9SYXmRA37ufVCGciZsMvY1xQ5fWV2lF1J5VOk3CZ82kNsSN4kB7JeF70JymQ/fRsJcP5zQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.201.196 with SMTP id z187mr1912993ybf.161.1488324378688; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.234.9 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.234.9 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E5F420F7-6B91-4E00-A434-A2A9B77DA3C8@trammell.ch>
References: <28F27305-3F58-4091-857C-4BD4BEE8093C@trammell.ch> <E5F420F7-6B91-4E00-A434-A2A9B77DA3C8@trammell.ch>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:26:18 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fE3h5eRMgbgT=a2C+0M3AsBYiJSn1sA-YwDOkO0PH8RQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d88eae7058405499f8538
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/plus/AFgR9G7zkBry-lLrvJnnkoBjXiA>
Cc: plus@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Plus] Status of PLUS
X-BeenThere: plus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of a Path Layer UDP Substrate \(PLUS\) protocol for in-band management of in-network state for UDP-encapsulated transport protocols." <plus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/plus>, <mailto:plus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/plus/>
List-Post: <mailto:plus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:plus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plus>, <mailto:plus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:26:20 -0000

On Feb 28, 2017 16:56, "Brian Trammell" <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:

Hi, Lin, all,

Circling back on these points...

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 22:38, Lin Han <Lin.Han@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hello, all
>
> Just signed up this list, I knew PLUS has been concluded unfortunately.

In the sense that the BoF failed to come to consensus that a working group
could be formed with the presented scope, due to questions about the
privacy risk / utility tradeoff of a generalized solution to the problem of
replacing implicit interference by path elements with explicit
communication, yes... I would not yet say we've come to a "conclusion" yet,
though.


It's worth saying that I agree with Brian's summary.

Spencer, as responsible AD for PLUS