Re: [Taps] IETF planning

Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> Mon, 26 October 2015 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
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 81BC41B3E09 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OUP-IWCxq79W for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x236.google.com (mail-yk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F9761B3E08 for <taps@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykek133 with SMTP id k133so510264yke.2 for <taps@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HYv5SQsvHiPZaVYZnWb11dxRlSxn/9LixH8HgBm0GDg=; b=RIyPg9X1+02UYOgrhcj0DeLPtIRwX/TP55ip6oHkKk08Y48dfQQb0uj9/7OenBrBTX HnrCn6ZbzSr3MaCHjrv8aKJBmfKuVXhV+pzWqIH6u7ELqgVGvm9+7oKbDw0wIcC/ZNj3 2zYFrcHnla//EvomNKmqnYSRdstlW1kkvwtKEJz4JAuTbbZyuJTt6C1gCQ8xduvqGWqm fBz3L2mKNUtdVp4WKwG4euiGWiiNO6Ry7gbAjxIt11vtpTHWiBiT0HDniuQq9tGHvIrL 8U+ob2dBgB2DXPAJJT8i7k/LlAl3vw9d0Jln/NTT3VqrKESAA1aowC/Z4u6Eo1OKAdKl LQhw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.245.134 with SMTP id e128mr25513913ywf.24.1445865437859; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.95.2 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <562DF846.7090901@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:17:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD62q9XjebXmRHUebJLrd35=PnrLPGCZFv4LBO5omYBh2J+72Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c034df0d13086052301c757
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/Oq_4UzEsjm0UFSK1_GPgznfBc14>
Cc: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, 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: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:17:20 -0000

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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