Re: [Taps] IETF planning

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

>
>
> > 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