IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning

"Philipp S. Tiesel" <phils@in-panik.de> Thu, 29 June 2017 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <phils@in-panik.de>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E016D128CFF for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JQH5rWlmtyrg for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from einhorn-mail.in-berlin.de (einhorn-mail.in-berlin.de [217.197.80.20]) (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 88CA0129B6A for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: phils@in-panik.de
Received: from x-berg.in-berlin.de (x-change.in-berlin.de [217.197.86.40]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id v5TGRD3s023839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:27:13 +0200
Received: from [2001:638:809:ff1f::8295:dc3a] by x-berg.in-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <phils@in-panik.de>) id 1dQcHa-0000th-N8; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:27:06 +0200
From: "Philipp S. Tiesel" <phils@in-panik.de>
Message-Id: <63E9883D-CDD8-415E-9FCD-CE267E005F3A@in-panik.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CF06B09E-6FDE-47D8-9DF3-D69D46808808"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:27:06 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CEA46958-6620-4138-BA2F-B55D1F87674A@trammell.ch>
Cc: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
References: <C582EEC8-8762-4CB6-9CA3-4E5AF92C5A68@gmail.com> <3A3686B5-FF60-448E-9E13-4B493B472C6D@gmail.com> <CEA46958-6620-4138-BA2F-B55D1F87674A@trammell.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/BPMdb_ie3zTg2-o-r8H-OOluM8I>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:27:58 -0000

Hi Aaron,

> On 29. Jun 2017, at 18:07, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
> 
> hi Aaron,
> 
>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 17:36, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Updating. Our agenda time is much more productive if we can home in on specific questions to discuss rather than just give document overviews. Authors & other folk: what’s interesting, unclear, or controversial here?
> 
> I think it's time to level up and have a discussion about "policy" and how it relates to TAPS.
> 
> I'm going to leave the definition of "policy" here deliberately vague with the hope that we can start to build some terminology around it at the meeting.
> 
>> 
>> 	• draft-gjessing-taps-minset-05.txt
>> 
>> 		• There’s been some interesting discussion on the draft. Are there any specific topics we should set aside time to discuss?
>> 	• Socket Intents, Philipp
>> 
>> 		• Again, what specific topics should we discuss?
>> 		• We’ve been told to expect 3 drafts: on general concepts, BSD implementation, & communication granularity. What’s worth discussing?
> 
> Given the focus of the socket intents and granularity work, I think starting the policy discussion here makes sense.

Agreed - 10min talk for context and run though about socket intents and granularity stuff would be great (plus 2 to 5min for discussion how to proceed with both drafts).

The Policy discussion following that might take some time…

The third draft is expected tomorrow or on Monday and I think it does not really need separate discussing in Prague.
It is mainly context for the socket intents draft and contains some lessons learned that might be useful for other projects around TAPS.

AVE!
  Philipp S. Tiesel / phils…

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email