Re: [Taps] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

the use of normative language is separate from your discussion point (on intended status), right?

I just want to mention that there was also quite extensive discussion about this in the working group. And as you say correctly there are some requirements in this document, and we decided to use normative language to highlight that. So I don’t think simply just removing the normative language is providing anybody a service.

Therefore, I guess your question really is should this document be called “architecture and requirements”. I don’t have a strong opinion here but I also don’t think it would make the document any better. The main focus is on the architecture. Also note that these requirements are not requirements for the design of the API (as we often do for requirement doc in the IETF) but requirement for the deployment of this architecture. And therefore, fully in the scope of an architecture document (without explicitly stating this in the title).

Mirja



From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 4. September 2023 at 17:25
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=[e-mail]>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>, Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

Sure, lets discuss this during the telechat. In the mean time if you can provide more information on the exact separation and definition of architecture I-D vs requirements I-D, hopefully in some sort of documentation with consensus , that would be helpful.

//Zahed

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 4:07 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Let's have a chat (aka discussion) during the IESG telechat on Thursday with the AD (and authors/shepherd if they want to join). My own preference is to avoid normative language in an architecture I-D, else it becomes a 'requirements' I-D.

Regards,

-éric

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, 4 September 2023 at 15:56
To: Michael Welzl <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

Michael, thanks for digging up the minutes.

In my memory I think there was also at the end a strong sense in the room to have all doc the same intended status. In my view these docs really belong closely together and as an implementer you really need all three of them. The reason for the split up is maybe more a service for non-implementors. E.g. if you only want to understand the interface in order to use it, it’s probably enough if you read the arch and the API doc. If you only want to get a high-level idea what taps is, you might read only the arch doc.

Mirja



From: Taps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Michael Welzl <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, 4. September 2023 at 10:19
To: Éric Vyncke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Éric,

Many thanks for your thoughtful review!   Regarding the DISCUSS point, which is about the intended status of the architecture document:

First, my apologies. In my shepherd write-up, I wrote that “the charter” says that this is the intended status.  I believe I made a mistake here, by referring to the “Milestones” as a part of the “Charter”, since they appear on the same page. From the milestones, the planned status is clear:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/taps/about/
Digging deeper, I managed to find the discussion that led to this decision. It’s here, right on the top (first meeting item):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/minutes-102-taps-00

If I were to summarize this discussion, I would point out the following:

* there was a strong hum for Standards, and a light hum for Informational

* Pete Resnick’s statement is perhaps the clearest: "RFC 2026 allows Proposed Standards to be Technical Standards and Applicability statements. Proposed Standards are part of the Standards track. There is an expectation that you revise it. You can continue to make changes to it. Experimental are when you want to test something in a corner, not on the real internet. Informational is when we have not developed a protocol and we are not recommending it for something. This is Proposed Standard."

I hope this helps?

Cheers,
Michael

PS: JFYI, regarding your other comments - yours, and all others, become issues in our github:  https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501cfaf3-313273af-454445554331-2fc48301f7570c95&q=1&e=c189c75b-ab30-4b04-92a7-bd391b816384&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fietf-tapswg%2Fapi-drafts%2Fissues>  and we take it from there.


On 28 Aug 2023, at 12:47, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-arch/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-taps-arch-18

Thank you for the work put into this *NEAT* document (private joke). It is easy
to read and is an important piece of work required to deploy new transports.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (mainly to have a discussion, do
not worry too much), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Michael Welzl for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status *even* if I
disagree with the intended status (see below my DISCUSS point).

Other thanks to Bernie Volz, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request),
please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-arch-18-intdir-telechat-volz-2023-08-25/
(minor nits)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a *discussion* on the following topics:

## Intended status

This is only to have a public discussion (over email before the telechat or
during the IESG telechat), I intend to ballot either NoObj or Yes after this
discussion. The shepherd's write-up writes that the intended status is
"proposed standard" per TAPS WG charter and I do not see anything related to an
architecture document in the charter and even less about its intended status.
Moreover, most IETF architecture documents are 'informational'.

See also my comments about section 3.1


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# COMMENTS

## Anycast address

This document differentiates between unicast and multicast addresses, but
should there be a specific case of anycast addresses ?

## Section 1.4

I am not a transport expert but I would have included the transport protocol in
`Socket: The combination of a destination IP address and a destination port
number [RFC8303].`

## Section 2

Should 'DNS' be included in `system-provided stub resolver` ?

Figure 1 & 2 are nice but, please, add a references to them in the text.

In `it describes how implementations can use multiple IP addresses` isn't it
hidden usually to the application ?

## Section 2.3

In `The Socket API for protocols like TCP is generally limited to connecting to
a single address over a single interface.` should there be a mention of one or
several 'source' IP addresses ? Should 'address' be qualified by 'IP' (as
opposed to a DNS name or "Internet address" aka URL)?

## Section 2.4

How can a (nice) informational RFC 8170 "requires" in `incremental
deployability [RFC8170] requires coexistence`. Suggest to use "recommend" or
something similar to avoid confusion.

## Section 3.1

The presence of normative BCP14 terms ("SHOULD", ...) in an architecture
document looks weird to me (see my DISCUSS point above). Is this document an
'architecture' document or an 'architecture and requirements' one ?

## Section 3.3

What is the exact meaning of 'safely' in `Equivalent Protocol Stacks can be
safely swapped or raced in parallel` ?

## Section 4.1

s/Establishment (Section 4.1.4) focuses on the *actions* that an application
*takes on* the connection objects/Establishment (Section 4.1.4) focuses on the
*requests* that an application *sets to* the connection objects/ as it is not
really the application doing those actions ?

## Section 4.1.1

Please state the obvious: a multicast endpoint can only be a destination
endpoint.

## Section 4.1.3

Do the security parameters include DNS resolution security parameters ? E.g.,
mandatory use of DNSSEC or DoH?

## Section 4.1.5

Unsure whether the sentence `Messages are sent in the payload of IP packet` is
really useful. Suggest to remove it.

## Section 4.2.2

Suggest to mention RFC 7556 in the discussion about different local addresses
(interfaces?) and DNS resolvers.

# NITS

## Section 2

Is a capitalised "Connections" required in `the interface for an application to
create Connections and transfer data` ? Or should there be a text in the
glossary section about the use of capitalised terms ?

## Section 2.1

s/all interaction using the Transport Services API is expected to be
asynchronous/all interactionS using the Transport Services API ARE expected to
be asynchronous/ ?