Re: [Spud] updated draft PLUS charter, rev. 1 June

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja!

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Aaron,
> 
> a few comments/answers mostly as proponent (if not indicated differently) in line. 
> 
>> Am 07.06.2016 um 19:44 schrieb Aaron Falk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>> 
>> Oh, and there should be some draft deliverables so we can have a fight about the realism of the associated dates.
> 
> As AD, I find this less important then the rest of the text. As proponent, I think the milestones/deliverables are more important than the dates... And there are actually a few open questions here, that I would like to discuss in BoF. But I guess we can start this discussion on the list before the meeting.

I was joking about the argument re: dates.  But I think we are in agreement that there should be discussion about what the deliverables should be.  This would be helped with a strawman in advance.


> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:40 PM Aaron Falk <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Apologies for being behind on the list and maybe repeating points that have been made.  A few comments based on my review of the BoF proposal & charter:
>> 
>> 	• 1st para of the charter says “The working group will not specify any new transport protocols.” and the 5th para says “The PLUS working group will specify a new protocol”.  I think the latter statement is correct.
> 
> No both is correct. Yes, we want to specify a new protocol, but I wouldn’t call it a transport protocol, because it’s ‚only‘ a signal shim layer, which does not have any of the other typical transport feature because there always has to be a ‚real‘ transport protocol on top. With this first sentences we wanted to make that clear; maybe it’s still not clear enough.

I am unclear.  Maybe others are not.  Are you inventing a new ’thing’ by not calling it a "shim that is not a transport protocol"?  Is there some reason to do so?  


> 
>> 	• I’d like to see a comment on PLUS re-enabling ICMP functionality
> 
> Yes, that’s a very good use case and clearly in scope. However, there are other good use cases as well, see the use case draft, and we decided to not explicitly outline one (of a subset of them) in the charter.

Fair point but I think the charter would benefit from at least a brief listing of the benefits that come from light weight, in-band signaling.  Besides their important role as scoping documents for working groups, charters (IMO) should help someone figure out what problems you are solving.  This can of course be done at length in a use-case doc but I believe providing a clue for the curious outsider as to whether the work is relevant.  YMMV.

> 
>> 	• There’s the obvious & unaddressed question about the relation to QUIC
> 
> I also think that this does not really belong in the charter. It’s for sure important to make this clear in the BoF and that why we have the agenda item on 'Relationship to other work in the IETF’.

OK.  I probably should have figured that out by who was presenting.

> 
>> 	• The PLUS Bof description should start something like “This BoF is to discuss the proposed PLUS working group.  The wg’s goal is to…”
> 
> Don’t know; isn’t that implicit for a working group forming BoF…?

Meh, I disagree.  Clearly a nit.


> 
>> 	• No discussion of wg anti-goals.  I had heard some interest in ruling middlebox to middlebox signaling as out of scope.
> 
> That’s a good point. I believe that’s out of scope and would be willing to add that.

Are there other anti-goals?

> 
>> 	• (To ADs:) Would like to see the QUIC and PLUS BoFs scheduled back-to-back.  While I think the topics are mostly separable, if the discussion gets out of sync it will be a headache.
> 
> As AD, we already discussed that we would like to see the QUIC BoF first because at least I believe otherwise there is a high risk to have the QUIC BoF in the SPUD BoF. However, I don’t think back to back is a good idea (to have some cooling down phase in the mean time). And given that both BoFs look for a 2.5h slots, they probably will be in two morning slots on different days.

Fair enough.  My feelings about back-to-back are not strong and I am glad you’ve given it thought.

—aaron