Re: [Stackevo] Winding up the Stack Evolution Program

Hi Brian-

I agree that the topics that have been coming up lately differ enough 
from the original goals of the program that if it continues it would 
really be a different thing than originally chartered.  Closing it seems 
like a reasonable thing to do.  This makes me sad as the program 
meetings have been some of the more interesting and ‘distant 
horizon’ discussions that I get during the IETF week.  I was 
contemplating proposing those who are interested continue as a lunch 
group or something but I think without the IAB involvement it may not 
lead to much.  I’m interested in other’s opinions.

--aaron

On 20 May 2019, at 5:59, Brian Trammell wrote:

> Greetings, all,
>
> At the IAB retreat last week, as part of a review of the structure of 
> its programs, the IAB discussed the future of the Stack Evolution 
> program, and has decided that once draft-thomson-use-it-or-lose-it has 
> been sent up to the IAB as a whole, that the program should be closed 
> in its present form.
>
> I, personally, consider this a declaration of victory, and thank you 
> all for your work and the discussions over the past few years.
>
> The initial concept behind the IP Stack Evolution program, 
> investigating how changes to the transport layer could be deployed in 
> the big-I Internet, and explore the impact of encryption at the 
> transport layer on evolution of the stack. At the time the program 
> started, there was not much work yet in and around the IETF in this 
> space.
>
> That has changed. TAPS has been chartered (and is well on its way to 
> defining an abstract interface that reduces the rigidness of the 
> binding between interfaces and transports). QUIC has demonstrated that 
> it is possible to deploy a new transport protocol at scale, and nearly 
> finished an IETF standard version of that protocol. Conversations 
> (many conversations) have started about the balance of measurability 
> and confidentiality, in the form of the QUIC spin bit. A wider 
> discussion about the history of transport-layer signaling, and what we 
> can learn from it going forward, is ongoing in PANRG.
>
> There two possible next steps for the program as I see it:
>
> (1) declare victory, close, and continue the discusson in the IETF and 
> in the hallways; and/or
>
> (2) determine if there is follow-on work to be coordinated by and with 
> the IAB, and if so, propose a description for a follow-on program.
>
> If there's interest in (2), please let us know on the stackevo@ list.
>
> Thanks, cheers,
>
> Brian (outgoing IAB lead)
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> Stackevo@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo