IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@nokia.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 7AADA12D6B1 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 rKZYjGAZipfu for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4998912D69C for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 0AAC0F09AF844; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:20:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u6LFKhxi015419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:20:43 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u6LFKXYA003335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:20:43 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.34]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:20:41 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
To: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?
Thread-Index: AQHR42Hrz3dzvlK1gU63zg2rIKypSKAi/qog
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:20:40 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D4892D396@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5c86a251-7acd-6036-542c-55cfad96ee08@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c86a251-7acd-6036-542c-55cfad96ee08@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/q7D1FKOvkPI2Q0IKsP05yArV3Z8>
Subject: Re: [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 15:20:47 -0000

For what it is worth, NSIS has been raised quite some time ago, e.g.: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/current/msg00367.html

There was some follow-up discussion on in-band vs. out-of-band.

Of course, NSIS was not the first attempt in this space.

Michael


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spud [mailto:spud-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Stiemerling
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:09 PM
> To: spud@ietf.org
> Subject: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than
> the pack?
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> Spud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email