Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning

… and the latest version of the minset draft excludes security from the final minset, mentioning that this will be addressed in a separate draft (which should be this one).

Cheers,
Michael

> On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, we’d like to add this as a WG item once published. This is based on the conversation had at the meeting in Chicago about wanting a draft to include Security protocols for TAPS API considerations.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tommy
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2017, at 1:44 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com <mailto:aaron.falk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Cool. Are you proposing this as a wg item?
>> 
>> --aaron
>> 
>> On 27 Jun 2017, at 16:22, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Aaron,
>> 
>> We have a draft we’ll be publishing in the next week that does a survey of Transport Security protocols, and the interfaces they expose to the transport layer as well as applications. We’d like to have a slot to discuss this topic with the WG.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tommy
>> 
>>> On Jun 27, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com <mailto:aaron.falk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here the short list of topics recently raised for our next meeting and some questions/comments. Please respond and suggest any other topics.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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?
>>> Michio Honda HotNets paper “PASTE: Network Stacks Must Integrate with NVMM Abstractions <http://www.ht.sfc.keio.ac.jp/%7Emicchie/papers/paste-hotnets16.pdf>”
>>> 
>>> “These days I'm working on networking interface for non-volatile main memory (a.k.a. persistent memory and storage-class memory), because with such devices networking stack/API becomes a bottleneck in the end-to-end communication that involves persistent media (disk or SSDs for now). I saw some post-socket discussion in the minutes of the last meeting, so I wonder if this type of work could give some useful information to IETFers who design new transport API standards.”
>>> Is there interest in this topic? AFAIK, there’s no Internet Draft. I will inquire whether Michio intends to submit one.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Taps mailing list
>>> Taps@ietf.org <mailto:Taps@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taps mailing list
>> Taps@ietf.org <mailto:Taps@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps