Re: [Spud] questions on the BoF outcome

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 <
Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com> 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:spud-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fossati, Thomas
> > (Nokia - GB)
> > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:26
> > To: spud@ietf.org
> > 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
> > Spud@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> Spud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud
>