Re: [Taps] agenda planning for chicago

Hi,

I’ll answer with an apology: "early Jan, then” turned out differently… indeed we’ve been working on the -usage and -minset docs since fall and did NOT just wait until the last minute!
BUT it’s taken so long!  It’s just… a lot of stuff.

I think we have some interesting suggestions to make, coming out of the minset draft. I do think these are important next things to discuss - we should be focusing on charter item 2, what *is* the subset of transport services that a TAPS system should provide?

From the top of my head, I can think of these 3 major questions that appeared to us when we worked on our drafts:
- how do we handle multi-streaming? It seems to us that it shouldn’t be visible as such, there should be “flows” or “channels” or “connections” or whatever, with priorities and a notion of groups (could be a float each, assigned to “flows” as a property)
- how do we handle messaging? If, starting from SCTP, we allow only transport features that can fall-back to TCP (a part of our minset work), then we end up with some ways to send a message, but we can only receive a bytestream.
This can lead to a nice and uniform and downwards-compatible interface for the case where a receiving application doesn't need the transport to tell it where messages begin / end (and that’s the ONLY limitation!). We came up with this “application-framed bytestream” (AFra-Bytestream) concept in NEAT)
- what about message sizes?  I’m not sure this was fully resolved on the mailing list…

Cheers
Michael

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:15 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Picking up on this thread and soliciting agenda items for Chicago.  What are the key questions TAPS should be focusing on at this meeting?
> 
> —aaron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 Dec 2016, at 20:16, Michael Welzl wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We NEATers would love to give the presentation that was dropped the last time.
>> Other news from my / our side:
>> - getting closer to the finish line with the -usage draft: quite a lot of updates already done, one major one due early Jan, then we want to submit…
>> - some ideas (thanks to everyone for input at the last meeting! that was helpful!) for the minset draft, it’s bound to change quite a bit and hopefully provoke an interesting discussion; for now, the plan is to also finish that off fast, i.e. maybe in january…
>> 
>> cheers
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 21, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The secretariat has issued the call for wg sessions.  It would be helpful if we had an early idea of the agenda for a TAPS meeting in March.  Should we try again to get in the talks on post-sockets and NEAT?  Are there any other implementation projects that would like to present?  Any other topics to discuss?
>>> 
>>> —aaron
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Taps mailing list
>>> Taps@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps