Re: [Taps] Heads-up: Should we conclude TAPS after the three docs are done?

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

+1 to having the interim. I think we could indeed get some short mapping documents done in less time than we spent on the core docs… if for nothing else, having a document that shows a message-based protocol on top of a stream without a custom framer would be useful. 

Tommy

> On Mar 15, 2023, at 2:07 PM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 15/03/2023 20:52, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> Hi !
>> 
>> I would love to have an interim. These are the things that I personally would like to discuss:
>> 1) what could we now do to foster deployment of this?
>> 2) is anyone really planning to write an http mapping document, ever?  this would have to be (and should be easy for!) someone with the right implementation experience…….   ahem…
>> 3) like 2), but s/http/quic
>> 
>> If the WG closes, where else could 2) and 3) happen?  Does this relate to item 1) somehow?
>> 
>> If everyone just shrugs their shoulders to all of these questions (as I do), I guess this could be a short interim followed by closing the group. Just my 2 cents.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
> 
> I think we previously said we could fo 2,3 after we had the base drafts published - I expect that is going to be soon, and I think once that is done we ought to have that interim and talk about this!
> 
> Gorry
> 
>> 
>>>> On Mar 15, 2023, at 4:35 PM, Reese Enghardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear TAPS,
>>> 
>>> As we are moving towards finishing the three core documents, the next step will be to recharter or conclude.
>>> 
>>> We have talked about possible further milestones related to mapping documents, and we have a few related issues on the Github (https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Amappings).
>>> 
>>> However, we have not seen much activity on this topic since IETF 113, and we have no related currently active documents.
>>> 
>>> I wanted to give you a heads-up that, given this state, the chairs are wondering if it'll be time to conclude TAPS once the core documents have made their way to the RFC Editor, unless we see evidence of substantial interest and activity regarding further milestones.
>>> 
>>> Nothing has been decided yet, and we will be happy to discuss this question.
>>> 
>>> TAPS is not meeting at IETF 116, but we can consider scheduling a virtual interim meeting or a WG meeting at IETF 117 if we have content for a fruitful discussion.
>>> 
>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Reese
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Taps mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taps mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps