IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 15 March 2023 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A447C1524B3; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ifi.uio.no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DlgXjXvC0m7; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out04.uio.no (mail-out04.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1A95C14CE38; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 13:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ifi.uio.no; s=key2103; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=tRj9Ptb98jbSqyrULhHrIvmmViwOhlTa/kt7+rYMtno=; b=iAs1DfMlBBSkGW5ahAD86cF8qu FvLS6pbilVmFXCb8LrP5CNSJ8pev2WszlZrlvNbTHeo/IzhtPbAs6g3QgKuN3nj4F8eghBr0xLx1c 9m670Cy924iwZqKU9y5sEo/Efgidrt52wDV5CgC2Zus3k45m2p8k1Ufeq8VEUaSxHPFjcHL0Zcbwb vasBaPD+2A9LXHiR1+w290ZBgu3z7FYTHqD2k687QxylxV/R6x2arWyUyck83AVxLI30BH1h/ku0u snPiw5Xdx0MeRMeGDQu3F5evzQF04Tt8vVmBxP25eXAoA3sE5juirCyJ0k9r2bavIwjUAplHBsc9r 2Ya/DYpQ==;
Received: from mail-mx02.uio.no ([129.240.10.43]) by mail-out04.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1pcY6o-004xr2-0d; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:52:30 +0100
Received: from [185.176.244.64] (helo=smtpclient.apple) by mail-mx02.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1pcY6n-0006f0-1w; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:52:30 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <01ee447f-7608-703f-31cf-12dfaa68df1f@tenghardt.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:52:22 +0100
Cc: "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, "taps-chairs@ietf.org" <taps-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <759B53CA-7172-488C-A2B3-B426E3988C30@ifi.uio.no>
References: <01ee447f-7608-703f-31cf-12dfaa68df1f@tenghardt.net>
To: Reese Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx02.uio.no: 185.176.244.64 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=185.176.244.64; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=smtpclient.apple;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=0.065, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5)
X-UiO-Scanned: 7B389E12561FA0EAE52942C2B1FD55F7773A488C
X-UiOonly: 486A2AAD72803F65FD844FB2AB46C42225CB4BB7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/V2lbsJCBJWTY4r7V50aaXc6tuq0>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Heads-up: Should we conclude TAPS after the three docs are done?
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <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: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 20:52:38 -0000

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


> On Mar 15, 2023, at 4:35 PM, Reese Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net> 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
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email