IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 27 October 2015 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <steing@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEE41ACE80 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 s9V4UIPLMozk for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (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 170441ACE8B for <taps@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <steing@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Zr9wm-0007aX-D2; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:30:16 +0100
Received: from 16.79-161-30.customer.lyse.net ([79.161.30.16] helo=[10.0.1.3]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user steing (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <steing@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Zr9wl-00082Q-MG; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:30:16 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ACC68171-0A00-42E0-BC52-6F0AEC5A052A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <CAD62q9XQMSyuG_=HYjXKe12iE=-F3HasXqrmJs+RAQeBZbddCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:31:21 +0100
Message-Id: <0505F6AF-F999-478D-8598-6F259D43AC4F@ifi.uio.no>
References: <64271754-EED2-4322-BB0E-51CB66365682@gmail.com> <B36B9E5E-0EB5-418A-A6A1-E103C8ECF500@ifi.uio.no> <CCC80AEF-66CD-4497-A374-2ED89DF4FA17@trammell.ch> <CAD62q9XQMSyuG_=HYjXKe12iE=-F3HasXqrmJs+RAQeBZbddCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 5 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 7 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 15940 max rcpts/h 43 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 6F8C3DDEA79C3411FD540664B7D7ACAC0E11D4FF
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: UIO-GREYLIST remote_host: 79.161.30.16 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 99990 minaction 1 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 1731 max/h 32 blacklist 0 greylist 1 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/1X6FDxoBAkYPN550NgseC5HcLBU>
Cc: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [Taps] IETF planning
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:30:20 -0000

Hi,

Sorry for the long silence.  I have been on vacation with  almost no internet connection.
I will attend IETF 94, but I don´t feel ready to lead a discussion about charter item 2.
However, I will take part in the discussion and gladly contribute to the draft we eventually have to make to fulfill the charter, possibly by revising draft-gjessing-taps-minset.

Stein

On 22 Oct 2015, at 16:14, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> > draft-welzl-taps-transports currently only covers TCP and SCTP. But then: how many other protocols?
> > It seems people agree that the protocols covered in draft-welzl-taps-transports should be a subset of the protocols covered in draft-ietf-taps-transports. My question is, then: how to choose the subset?
> >
> > It seems obvious to include protocols that are seeing some deployment, i.e. of course UDP, maybe UDP-Lite (?), but also MPTCP…
> > However: if that is the only decision ground, we probably wouldn’t include DCCP. Are we then making a significant mistake, missing a lesson to be learned?
> >
> > That, to me, is a discussion I’d like to have in Yokohama.
> 
> +1, and FWIW that's exactly the same starting point I got to on my own.
> 
> 
> Any volunteers to kick off the lead the discussion?
> 
>  
> > It may not be much, but fwiw, draft-gjessing-taps-minset exists. It contains some ideas on how services could be narrowed down, and these could be applied to draft-welzl-taps-transports just as well as to draft-ietf-taps-transports  (which it’s currently written around).
> 
> There's probably quibbling to be done about the details, but I believe draft-gjessing is a good starting point for charter item 2.
> 
> 
> 
> Stein, will you be in Yokohama and interested in leading a discussion on this draft?
> 
> --aaron

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status