[Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?

Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
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 892FA12D674 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 URSqlmbwZGVL for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 CC76912D5F8 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id b199so64753501lfe.0 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wYj6LJhBBZEWrZMA22v80LJ71wTnE5iVrlWpXpkmGYs=; b=td0gQiYluNwC0zzHedRVs9CLUS5BAokY69jc4Soua6+HcSuzYf4p583vb4kTM9RCjF MDKcYdcQovTxHu6jPien2xulOJxTYSKR3L18tgD37KRbKD3cyorzcKNmXxSBA09dz7i6 9mg8jHC7WqbTI9ZRPECA7DKqSaLCvheSOMjgWodsJcKfJu0QDut3MLTphVqCHkDgEjsi gr67pzflOom2KTlbhMNYnvcxzWPAItvVPYKFc19qfr0vFT/oDssBwZr40JhXUY0/Noc6 03CY+EuSCbdJSaKzcOvHoNuMP5c7kSjAR7qtHqhydnQULEFIaywi5xsVEsYMaZBUps+/ yiuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wYj6LJhBBZEWrZMA22v80LJ71wTnE5iVrlWpXpkmGYs=; b=fRjThOuMhZTqrrZ/O/UIKrj/WXa7eo0dU5oQj14eHtf584xmJSsS1CrAsFtYBMTCjf iHkCApo1AIRZyRR37PhZf8WHcQTtyH3Ee3J0B8/DdxqUgT4yvyTE7mwJK65Yj4vfX4nq uRn+9/gWVgkjq5TpD+qsBk56Mi5qSJwO8zawNTQS+wXPEQrsojLG7y5gc90blcCUprh3 MTHwx1lVCNtZ8s3/i8qirT8+vQ9jlzMntJPT2lJQH4/l6kS7ympzlgEIbB8vhkgwLXFr Y8tcrRyEAR4KSy1eRvumubw78MTx7MIdPxsK9v7qDkS6i5RqLV2fUDLS7uuU1ff7CXpB T6Lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL89Uif2LotP6qSBQk5pcEf4u1yf1hDOJTKKBXFwAohhkttQDtSS3+N8jrMkaqHuw==
X-Received: by 10.25.214.76 with SMTP id n73mr17121123lfg.162.1469113753624; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2003:74:cf54:d255:8990:29d2:df8a:b967? (p20030006154B7555899029D2DF8AB967.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:6:154b:7555:8990:29d2:df8a:b967]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 67sm1969773ljj.8.2016.07.21.08.09.12 for <spud@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: spud@ietf.org
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5c86a251-7acd-6036-542c-55cfad96ee08@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:09:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/Vc53EybWBPar6NQazFEbb49I3II>
Subject: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:09:17 -0000

Hi,

I did had the comment about prior work in the space of middlebox 
signaling during the PLUS today (via jabber).

And I got an interesting reply (from Aaron I believe) a long these lines:
The prior work just didn't do the job and PLUS will do all better.


This was a nice, but without any technial meat behind, right?! :-/


So why should PLUS be better as the pack (e.g., NSIS, as we talk about 
path-coupled signaling)?

And by the way, I am not a promoter of NSIS (though I have been one of 
the co-chairs), but an interest IETF member that would like understand 
why people believe making a new protocol will just solve the problems 
others have run into before? And those problems haven't been fixed by 
today.

Thanks in advance,

   Martin