Re: [Stackevo] Breakfast Tuesday Morning

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

I'm sorry I couldn't attend.  I think the draft is definitely timely and
worthwhile.  Maybe even overdue ;-). I particularly like your example on
slide 4.  One observation I would make: the IETF is in a good position
to codify the technical aspects of these schemes so as to keep them to a
minimum.  As a for instance. <hashofpublickey> doesn't seem to me to be
something that is particualrly unique to OCF.  What *could be* unique to
OCF is perhaps the algorithm that is used in the hash, but then perhaps
that is something that could be worked on if people care enough.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Eliot


On 16.07.18 23:46, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Since undoubtedly someone will ask me to send pointers to this list after the discussion, I'll do so now.
> Pre-reading anything before the meeting is not required.
>
> Slides from IETF 99: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-dispatch-mult-transport-uris-00
> Minutes from IETF 99 artarea discussion: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-dispatch-00
> Subsequent ART/URI-review thread (on one page): http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/art-Internet-Draft-Using-URIs-With-Multiple-Transport-Stacks-td538558.html 
>
> During the program meeting, I plan to talk to slides 2-3 of the deck above, and verbally summarize 
> what's in the other two links.  We can then discuss Adam's question to the IAB.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Thaler 
> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:52 PM
> To: 'Brian Trammell (IETF)' <[e-mail]>; Stackevo <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [Stackevo] Breakfast Tuesday Morning
>
> Brian Trammell writes:
>> feel free to propose a concrete topic of discussion
> I have a topic to propose.  
> draft-thaler-appsawg-multi-transport-uris is basically a problem statement, surveying various things people do today.
> It was reviewed by artarea/dispatch back at IETF 99 and had support (all issues raised so far have been addressed), and I've been talking to Alexey and Adam about AD-sponsoring.
>
> However, there's no actual recommendations, which would be a separate effort/doc, as discussed in artarea at IETF 99.
> The W3C TAG tried and failed to get any consensus, so I'm not optimistic the IETF could either (and I'm not sure whether the IAB could either for that matter).
>
> Adam wrote:
>> I'll bend the ear of various IAB members to see whether they think there's hope of making progress on the second document you mention.
> Since one of the main issues is how to deal with protocol stacks, it seems that the Stackevo program might the most logical program for such question.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo
>