IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-transports-over-udp-00.txt

Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> Mon, 23 May 2016 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88F712D993 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bE3yqufnnERz for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6075D12D99D for <spud@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:64:49:b0cc:febd:b2ea:c9b0] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:64:49:b0cc:febd:b2ea:c9b0]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A60B41A0523; Mon, 23 May 2016 17:42:55 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_69973D08-3D08-4EB0-BE1D-5B1BB2F51D02"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48863300@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:42:57 +0200
Message-Id: <07E0D879-73F8-41A4-9525-4DCE5D592C07@trammell.ch>
References: <CALx6S377qRfq7ufRVUx6Yn7ec4=EmK_=FL14PWT_qf4g840mbQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160519185943.GM12994@cisco.com> <CALx6S37qPpKpCT6ZpVQwRWf1XFKESYasOBcz26To9zw0GRyz5Q@mail.gmail.com> <573E31E1.807@isi.edu> <20160519221102.GS12994@cisco.com> <573E3C5E.2090300@isi.edu> <20160520001323.GC2511@cisco.com> <573E6303.8030701@isi.edu> <20160520012431.GF2511@cisco.com> <573F47C0.3010501@isi.edu> <20160520182115.GO2511@cisco.com> <CALx6S378X7bk5q-u7Kxu+s3w1ZZ5kZcyhCVEUyPG_=hVzNH2tA@mail.gmail.com> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48860CBE@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <DM2PR0301MB06553A6249DB5BAD06D2A96BA84B0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S35m9xCvzLqXyLgARdoep_WfZBoLsGFNUVUx8GfxXfiYNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZZFkWNQ6dnETVoA0oat2h03JscCD6OcZPasFdKTYnkMQQ@mail.gmail.com> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48861FF5@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <BEE1A718-0D9E-49BC-B851-225CC2B42914@trammell.ch> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48863300@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcate l-lucent.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/SRoLuLKRv639NKYzEQ_5jIo1UbI>
Cc: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-transports-over-udp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:43:30 -0000

hi Michael,

> On 23 May 2016, at 16:56, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) <michael.scharf@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
>>> ·         Finally, from the current charter I don’t understand whether PLUS/SPUD would consider the requirements of middleboxes designed to provide user anonymity (e.g., TOR-like). I’d personally be fine with flagging their specific requirements as out-of-scope. But for sure there is a user community of that sort of infrastructure and it may make sense to discuss early how to deal with that.
> 
>> I *think* this is orthogonal -- I can't see what in PLUS would break TOR, or how stuff in PLUS could make TOR work better, without partially redesigning both... can you say more about what your concerns are here?
> 
> I don't think it is orthogonal, but I could imagine some quite contradicting design objectives on the required signaling e.g. between end system and TOR proxies. But I am not a TOR expert.
> 
> Why don't e.g. the BoF chairs reach out to the TOR community to get feedback and to ensure openness in the IETF process regarding all possibly affected users in the Internet?

Thanks for the suggestion; will do.

Thanks, cheers,

Brian

> 
> For instance, if there is no feedback from the a certain community, it would be easy to argue that something can be excluded in the charter.
> 
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> Spud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email