Re: [Taps] IETF100 meeting agenda uploaded

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments and thoughts, it is a good discussion going on here. I think we can continue the discussion at the meeting as we have more time according to the current agenda time. The proposal is to have a separate slot at the IETF100 meeting to discuss how to address the charter item 3 – multiple documents, multiple implementations etc.

Based on the discussion here I will keep the presentation order as it is. The initial thinking behind the order was that Tommy would talk about racing condition and fall-backs and Gorry would tell about what policies and API options NEAT took to address the similar aspects. Hence, they kind of fit together.

Updated agenda here https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/agenda-100-taps/ 


BR

Zahed 



On 2017-11-06, 09:38, "Gorry Fairhurst" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    
    It seems to me there are many ideas that could come forward if the work 
    in TAPS progresses.
    
    To me the three IDs we currently have are quite different - and they 
    seem to have different design goals. I suggest if the group is thinking 
    of accepting work against the third item in the charter that it would be 
    good to spend a little time to look at these proposals and then to 
    explore how the various proposals fit with the "subset of Transport 
    Services" resulting from the second charter item.
    
    Best wishes,
    
    Gorry
    
    On 05/11/2017, 07:49, Michael Welzl wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > It seems to me that this charter contains three items that relate to 
    > the API:
    > 1) draft-trammell-taps-post-sockets-03
    > 2) draft-tiesel-taps-socketintents-01
    > 3) draft-fairhurst-taps-neat-00
    >
    > ...which are currently charter items 3, 4 and 6 (an unrelated - no 
    > less important! because it describes the implementation! - item takes 
    > position 5). Moreover, for the first one, it says "expected adoption 
    > call targeting charter item 3”.
    >
    > I think it would make more sense to first hear all three proposals and 
    > then discuss the possible adoption of one of them?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Michael
    >
    >
    >> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker 
    >> <[e-mail] 
    >> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
    >>
    >> Hello WG,
    >> The agenda for IETF100 has been 
    >> uploaded_https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/agenda-100-taps/_
    >> Any comments?
    >> BR
    >> Zahed
    >> *===============================================================================*
    >> *ANM ZAHEDUZZAMAN SARKER
    >> *Ericsson Research
    >>
    >> *Ericsson
    >> *Laboratoriegränd 11
    >> 97128 Luleå, Sweden
    >> Phone [phone]
    >> Mobile [phone]
    >> Office [phone]
    >> Fax [phone]
    >> [e-mail] 
    >> <mailto:[e-mail]>
    >> _www.ericsson.com_ <http://www.ericsson.com/>
    >> ===============================================================================
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> Taps mailing list
    >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
    >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Taps mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps