Re: [Spud] questions on the BoF outcome

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Whats actually the official process for asking for support - only
Hum i the WG, or is there going to be a call here or whatever other
mailing list ?

If anyone is counting, here's one in favor of Plus WG.

Use-case: Controlled network edge to Internet firewalls wanting to have similar
flow recognition to TCP for UDP flows with replay-safe intent to receive
indication.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:48:47AM -0400, Ian Swett wrote:
> I hummed no largely because I felt I didn't clearly understand the work of
> the group, and hence couldn't evaluate whether it was possible and
> desirable.
> 
> I personally would have preferred a clearly scoped set of initial use
> cases, with other use cases of potential future interest requiring a
> re-charter.
> 
> I believe there are a lot of people interested in something along these
> lines, so my no hum was not an expression they should stop trying to move
> forward with a WG.  I also want to continue having the conversation about
> what the path needs at the IETF, because it comes up fairly often, but I
> feel there's currently no coherent forum for the conversation.
> 
> It would be great to see some amount of running code as well, with some
> clearly improved metrics for that particular use case.  I would hope small
> scale experiments would inform the WG on what topics may warrant a
> re-charter.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Szilveszter Nadas <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some other argument was e.g. overhead. There was a significant amount of
> > "NO" hums for the first question, the rest of the questions was not even
> > asked.
> >
> > It is also not clear to me, is there still hope, or is it hat eating time?
> > :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sz.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Spud [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fossati, Thomas
> > > (Nokia - GB)
> > > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:26
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [Spud] questions on the BoF outcome
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I could not attend the PLUS BoF.  So, I've just gone
> > through the
> > > minutes [1] (thanks a lot, scribes) and got the feeling that this work
> > is pushed
> > > back due to the perception that it'd weaken users' privacy?
> > >
> > > I hear these arguments:
> > > - "potential to compel clients to send metadata or packets will dropped"
> > >
> > > But that could have happened already if the network wanted to (just drop
> > any
> > > TCP payload that starts with 0x16 and allow only clear-text traffic!).
> > >  Access networks that you pay for do not have that incentive though, so
> > I'm
> > > very skeptical this could now happen *because of* PLUS.
> > >
> > > - "possibility for abuse"
> > >
> > > Well, that depends on the metadata that *users* decide to leak (which is
> > a
> > > separate discussion on the vocabulary), but in general Brian's framework
> > looks
> > > pretty well designed to bias control towards the endpoints which can act
> > as
> > > circuit-breakers at any point in time.
> > >
> > > - "giving more power to the network";
> > >
> > > This is actually true, but in a good way: the network will have power to
> > send
> > > useful information to the endpoints -- if it's asked to -- while being
> > empowered
> > > by the signalling coming from the endpoints (e.g., for DDoS prevention).
> > >
> > > So, sorry but this looks a lot like FUD to me.
> > >
> > > Is the working group not formed on these grounds?  Or have more
> > substantial
> > > weaknesses been highlighted during the discussion that have not been
> > > captured in the minutes?
> > >
> > > Cheers, thanks,
> > > t
> > >
> > > [1] http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-96-plus
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Spud mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spud mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud


-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [e-mail]