Re: [Spud] Draft agenda for BoF

Szilveszter Nadas <Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com> Wed, 18 March 2015 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691EC1A6F3C for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 SOfLWvl0e1uX for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E1DF1A6F39 for <spud@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79996d000006ebb-50-5509a75803ef
Received: from ESESSHC016.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 38.83.28347.857A9055; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:27:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB303.ericsson.se ([169.254.3.196]) by ESESSHC016.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.66]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:27:03 +0100
From: Szilveszter Nadas <Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com>
To: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Spud] Draft agenda for BoF
Thread-Index: AQHQWoemuNVPhbbo7E6Xz7UuUgsWOJ0UVe2AgA4hOLA=
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:27:03 +0000
Message-ID: <EA4C43BE752A194597B002779DF69BAE23CBC4A1@ESESSMB303.ericsson.se>
References: <E2E8CF90-0ACF-4F4E-B175-252BAA1AF226@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <54FDD743.7070204@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54FDD743.7070204@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EA4C43BE752A194597B002779DF69BAE23CBC4A1ESESSMB303erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RjdiOWeowa5VihZf/3WwWGxYPYXF YtGFp4wOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx7EPX9kCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mh7/fsVU0PWYseLc6ROM DYw9dxm7GDk5JARMJLoO3IOyxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcIRRovHVRiYIZwmjxP2L59lAqtgELCQa Vm4Gs0UElCXW3lnEDmIzC2RKPNhxmbWLkYNDWEBDom0fP4gpIqApseGjPoRpJTHxSi5IMYuA qsS7W9dYQWxeAV+J1qmXmEFsIYEEiTlX+1hAbE6gzsmntzKB2IxAp30/tYYJYpG4xK0n85kg ThaQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/VghbUaL9aQMjRH2+xI5Fb1kgdglKnJz5hGUCo+gsJKNmISmbhaRs FtDVzEBnrN+lD1GiKDGl+yE7hK0h0TpnLjuy+AJG9lWMosWpxUm56UZGeqlFmcnFxfl5enmp JZsYgRF4cMtvgx2ML587HmIU4GBU4uE1eMURKsSaWFZcmXuIUZqDRUmc1874UIiQQHpiSWp2 ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxvb5LxIM9q5f7B16znDRy/XbW19bnpSL0fxyWCTz9ve2uIDZ UxfIeMqEeqYeKNyeUcF0mzfueOg+B8+rTG1rPFm2m7kLMumuCawP57y9Nf6oVWZ/eVzkSi8m y4smZ5WKeTtneN+vmr/nwbx1xQvOFv+d6R93xfZw2zqNBz0brjZc5jur6h70TomlOCPRUIu5 qDgRAPxS+jyhAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/N4JwqVdTvHKjgoHdh4umJWUFAOU>
Cc: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Spud] Draft agenda for BoF
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:27:10 -0000

Hi,

With the current assumptions for SPUD I it is hard for me to find sufficient  deployment incentives for the network. I will most likely comment on this at the BoF. It does not look a showstopper for me, though it would be good to discuss the assumptions further or find incentives for the network with the current assumptions.

We wrote a partly related draft, which I sent to the tsvwg list. Some of the requirements of it could result in use cases for SPUD and maybe motivation for new information elements.

Cheers,
Szilveszter


-----Original Message-----

From: Szilveszter Nadas

Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:28

To: tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>

Cc: Attila Mihály

Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-mihaly-enablers-for-tlp-evolution-00.txt



Hi,



We created a draft about our vision how the transport protocol framework should look in the future, when user plane implementations allow much more variety and faster evolution. This relates to several ongoing ietf activities. We would be happy to present it, I think tsvwg is the right place for it. Also discussion and comments are welcome.



Cheers,

Szilveszter and Attila



-----Original Message-----

From: internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]

Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 15:54

To: Szilveszter Nadas; Attila Mihály; Attila Mihály; Szilveszter Nadas

Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mihaly-enablers-for-tlp-evolution-00.txt





A new version of I-D, draft-mihaly-enablers-for-tlp-evolution-00.txt

has been successfully submitted by Attila Mihaly and posted to the IETF repository.



Name:                  draft-mihaly-enablers-for-tlp-evolution

Revision:              00

Title:                      Enablers for Transport Layer Protocol Evolution

Document date:               2015-03-09

Group:                  Individual Submission

Pages:                   16

URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mihaly-enablers-for-tlp-evolution-00.txt

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mihaly-enablers-for-tlp-evolution/

Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mihaly-enablers-for-tlp-evolution-00





Abstract:

   In this document we collected requirements for TLP evolution. These

   requirements are the consequence of removing obstacles of TLP

   evolution. This results in a higher variety of expected TLP

   implementations and lower trust level in these. Confidentiality of

   communication and security is more and more important. Middleboxes

   which today are one of the obstacles of the evolution shall be taken

   into account and incentivized to cooperate in the future landscape.

   Resulting from the requirements we propose areas for further

   investigation.




From: Spud [mailto:spud-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 18:24
To: Mirja Kühlewind; spud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Spud] Draft agenda for BoF

Hi everyone,

Please now take a look at the agenda.  During the session we are planning to ask a few questions.  The chairs think that the following questions are good starting points:

  *   What are the capabilities that we need and don’t have today; and why do we need them?
  *   Are use cases well understood and relevant?
  *   Are there sufficient deployment incentives on endpoints? In the network?
  *   Should this be a UDP-based approach?
  *   What are the next steps?

What other questions are important to think about during the BoF and address at the end of the BoF?

Eliot


On 3/9/15 5:38 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:

Hi all,



we uploaded a draft agenda for the BoF:



http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/agenda/agenda-92-spud



Eliot & Mirja



_______________________________________________

Spud mailing list

Spud@ietf.org<mailto:Spud@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud