Re: [Stackevo] Winding up the Stack Evolution Program

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Tue, 21 May 2019 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D2812012D for <stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 03:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 rIm82rmnU86x for <stackevo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 03:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.6]) (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 D6DAB12006B for <stackevo@iab.org>; Tue, 21 May 2019 03:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp6.infomaniak.ch (smtp6.infomaniak.ch [83.166.132.19]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x4LACPNj012960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 May 2019 12:12:25 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:64:49:4016:6f45:dce2:d330] ([IPv6:2001:67c:64:49:4016:6f45:dce2:d330]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp6.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x4LACOLm005133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 May 2019 12:12:25 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <1A3EF62A-D069-4965-A86C-45A8D36E8792@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 10:12:24 +0000
Cc: Stackevo <stackevo@iab.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81A9170F-60C7-43F5-9CF5-C0BB3356C132@trammell.ch>
References: <2F1DE499-3B52-4C70-8C2C-F8B7F47C36D9@trammell.ch> <1A3EF62A-D069-4965-A86C-45A8D36E8792@gmail.com>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo/khq7dxXv6ATfyEFvpI9rT0AXEGQ>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo] Winding up the Stack Evolution Program
X-BeenThere: stackevo@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Program Mailing List <stackevo.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo>, <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo>, <mailto:stackevo-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 10:12:34 -0000

hi Aaron,

Personal opinions only here.

> On 20 May 2019, at 13:40, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Indeed, it seems to me (personally) that stackevo-the-program had become stackevo-the-lunch-club, at least in terms of its value to the participants. I'd be happy to make it a standing lunch, but it doesn't need to be an IAB program for that.

>  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 not sure why this is the case? Most of the activity that came out of stackevo, aside from the workshops, have happened through the IETF processes. 

Even workshops on some stack evolution topics became infeasible to do through the IAB process. The MAMI project ran the M3S workshop before IETF101 on its own, because the noise around kinda-related TLS interception discussions had been turned up so as to make any discussion in an IAB or IETF space impossible.

As long as at least one IAB member joins the lunch, good ideas that come out of it that actually do need IAB involvement can be sent up. And if not, iab@iab.org is always open to coherent requests for help. :)

Cheers,

Brian

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stackevo mailing list
> Stackevo@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo