Re: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?
"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:20 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AADA12D6B1 for <email@example.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 ([188.8.131.52]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rKZYjGAZipfu for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [184.108.40.206]) (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 <email@example.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [220.127.116.11]) 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 [18.104.22.168]) 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 [22.214.171.124]) 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 ([126.96.36.199]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:20:41 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Martin Stiemerling <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Thread-Topic: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:20:40 +0000
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:email@example.com?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:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Martin > Stiemerling > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:09 PM > To: email@example.com > 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
- Re: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS… mls.ietf
- Re: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS… Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)
- [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be … Martin Stiemerling