IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 22 October 2015 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3460B1A6F7A for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 b3OfY-TebTzp for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) (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 677F41A3BA6 for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZpIar-0001uR-60; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:19:57 +0200
Received: from 173.179.249.62.customer.cdi.no ([62.249.179.173] helo=[192.168.0.101]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZpIaq-0007yg-IP; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:19:57 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ACE9F393-BE77-4E5E-BFC5-E6320EA81F3B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <CAD62q9XQMSyuG_=HYjXKe12iE=-F3HasXqrmJs+RAQeBZbddCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:19:55 +0200
Message-Id: <AF2FC069-ED58-49AC-B0F9-D543E4C2647B@ifi.uio.no>
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>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 5 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 9 sum msgs/h 5 total rcpts 34235 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 1F403125B7359AF6123BF29DDB117FBC30833DF4
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 62.249.179.173 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 99990 minaction 1 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 1900 max/h 14 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/LmUCZNR4QNoLJnyPTZFAWQnoEUg>
Cc: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, Stein Gjessing <steing@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [Taps] IETF planning
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Oct 2015 16:20:02 -0000

> On 22. okt. 2015, at 16.14, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > draft-welzl-taps-transports currently only covers TCP and SCTP. But then: how many other protocols?
> > It seems people agree that the protocols covered in draft-welzl-taps-transports should be a subset of the protocols covered in draft-ietf-taps-transports. My question is, then: how to choose the subset?
> >
> > It seems obvious to include protocols that are seeing some deployment, i.e. of course UDP, maybe UDP-Lite (?), but also MPTCP…
> > However: if that is the only decision ground, we probably wouldn’t include DCCP. Are we then making a significant mistake, missing a lesson to be learned?
> >
> > That, to me, is a discussion I’d like to have in Yokohama.
> 
> +1, and FWIW that's exactly the same starting point I got to on my own.
> 
> 
> Any volunteers to kick off the lead the discussion?

Let me try to roll this some more on the list, because I gave it some thought:

The goal is to have something buildable. So if we allow protocols that are hardly deployed into draft-welzl-taps-transports, then this gives us a list that may include services that one can never implement unless hardly-deployed protocol X is used, or other protocols are extended to all of a sudden provide this functionality.

Thus, boring as it may seem, “widely deployed protocols” can be the only reasonable criterion to allow adding protocols in draft-welzl-taps-transports

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email