Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <029C74BE-7B33-4DC2-B449-07BACCCBDD2A@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:23:36 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53698FCA-C315-4C30-A936-0C1D4036F377@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <64271754-EED2-4322-BB0E-51CB66365682@gmail.com>
 <B36B9E5E-0EB5-418A-A6A1-E103C8ECF500@ifi.uio.no>
 <CCC80AEF-66CD-4497-A374-2ED89DF4FA17@trammell.ch>
 <CAD62q9XQMSyuG_=HYjXKe12iE=-F3HasXqrmJs+RAQeBZbddCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <562DF846.7090901@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
 <CAD62q9XjebXmRHUebJLrd35=PnrLPGCZFv4LBO5omYBh2J+72Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <564DD3D7-446B-4ABC-9A40-26E79DADD50E@ifi.uio.no>
 <CAD62q9WAaHZ_OrueAa5u0rMuZGssC0mR+3gVWEBQ7DmDMm0cAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <27697ADF-7AE6-4E99-8288-FF19A68F1411@ifi.uio.no>
 <6F9FB87C-D0FF-46B3-A634-8A2E1234F9B7@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
 <2DC75956-A94E-40DE-8A40-B8A6BABE8ED8@ifi.uio.no>
 <782D504B-656F-4C98-9790-A2B2FFC36473@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
 <3C8D178C-CEF2-4395-B4B7-2FB80F39F733@ifi.uio.no>
 <6507117D-40F1-48FF-ADB0-F624C33731FD@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
 <029C74BE-7B33-4DC2-B449-07BACCCBDD2A@ifi.uio.no>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/Li1p2QZQNRlu4mZO_c_zbWtWZ8o>
Cc: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>,
 "<gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fairhurst" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>,
 "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no>,
 Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
Subject: Re: [Taps] IETF planning
Precedence: list

Hi Micheal,

this is only a personal opinion and I do not object to work on this doc.

Mija



> Am 28.10.2015 um 09:05 schrieb Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>:
>=20
> Hi Mirja,
>=20
> I=E2=80=99m not sure where this discussion is leading us: twice you =
just say you disagree without giving a reason; then you seem to get kind =
of hung up on the =E2=80=9Cno congestion control=E2=80=9D bit =
immediately after quoting my statement:
>=20
> **
> Thus, =E2=80=9Cno congestion control=E2=80=9D becomes a part of the =
services. Because =E2=80=9Clack of XY=E2=80=9D is a bit strange as a =
service, it=E2=80=99d be obvious to write =E2=80=9Ccongestion control=E2=80=
=9D as a service for the other protocols instead.
> **
> i.e. the service would be "congestion control=E2=80=9D, not =E2=80=9Cno =
congestion control=E2=80=9D. The latter is just what you'd get in the =
first iteration when working through the UDP usage guidelines.
>=20
>=20
> I=E2=80=99ll cut most of the text here to try to wrap this up, then =
answer a particular point, and then get to your conclusion:
>=20
>=20
>> Further, back to your example above. To call =E2=80=9Eno congestion =
control=E2=80=9C a service you have to analyze the protocol itself. =
=E2=80=9Eno congestion control=E2=80=9C is not exposed in any =
interface!!! And analyzing the protocol is what we do in the =
taps-transport doc!
>=20
> No, you do *not* have to analyze the protocol, as this is not only =
about interfaces, it=E2=80=99s based on any text in the RFCs that =
describes what a protocol provides to the upper layer and how it is =
used. RFC 5405, as an obvious source of text on how to use UDP and what =
it provides to the layer above, tells us:
> "It is important to stress
>   that an application SHOULD perform congestion control over all UDP
>   traffic it sends to a destination, independently from how it
>   generates this traffic."
>=20
> So, once we include UDP, we get congestion control as a service for =
TCP and SCTP, from this text.
>=20
>=20
>> When I was reading draft-well-taps-transports I=E2=80=99d had the =
feeding you=E2=80=99ve started with the interfaces but then detected =
that obvious things are missing, so you basically also started analyzing =
the protocols itself but very selectively and from my point of view even =
more arbitrary.
>=20
> That=E2=80=99s not what I did. I strictly used only text that talks =
about what a protocol provides to the upper layer and how it is used.
>=20
>=20
>> =46rom my point of view, let's keep in mind all the discussion we had =
and what we learned to far, and let=E2=80=99s move on!
>=20
> Noting your statement from a previous email: "Again, I=E2=80=99m okay =
to have two docs here. I don=E2=80=99t think a second doc is absolutely =
necessary. An alternative would be to merge both docs=E2=80=A6 just as a =
side note. But I=E2=80=99m okay with both, two or one docs.=E2=80=9D, I =
agree and think we should just move on.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Michael