Re: [Taps] IETF planning

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 22/10/2015 15:14, Aaron Falk 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?
>>
>>
>>
> <snip test on another draft>
>
> So, I think UDP, and UDP-Lite *NEED* to be included. MPTCOP also.
>
> On DCCP, this has many services being re-invented above. I think we have
> an interesting dilemma about whether to describe this, I suggest one of the
> reason for the minimal use of DCCP (DCCP/UDP) could well be the lack of a
> framework that allows this to be done without recoding an app. So, if we
> had such a framework *WHEN* DCCP/UDP was done, we may now have seen more
> usage.


I don't understand.  Why leave out any of the protocols included in
draft-ietf-taps-transports?  Is there an argument other than for expedience?

--aaron