Re: [Taps] IETF planning

> On 22 Oct 2015, at 10:32, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 19. okt. 2015, at 20.44, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Folks-
>> 
>> So, we have these two docs and a rough agreement that they are complimentary.  Gorry suggests that they both progress as responsive to milestone 1:
>> 
>>>  I suggest the two docs against the first milestone will help us
>>> make  progress towards the next milestone faster. (Assuming we can keep
>>> the two aligned, which seems quite doable). I can see also how the  docs
>>> are useful to different people. I'd like to see both mature and provide
>>> inputs to move forward.
>> 
>> Is there agreement on this?  I’ve heard no objections.  Assuming so, we should move on.
>> 
>> First, I would ask that the authors summarize the work remaining on each doc to the list and call out any topics requiring discussion at the Yokohama meeting.
> 
> 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.

>> Second, let’s hear some proposals for addressing the second milestone.
>> 
>> 2) Specify the subset of those Transport Services, as identified
>>    in item 1, that end systems supporting TAPS will provide, and
>>    give guidance on choosing among available mechanisms and
>>    protocols.  Note that not all the capabilities of IETF Transport
>>    protocols need to be exposed as Transport Services.
>> 
> 
> It may not be much, but fwiw, draft-gjessing-taps-minset exists. It contains some ideas on how services could be narrowed down, and these could be applied to draft-welzl-taps-transports just as well as to draft-ietf-taps-transports  (which it’s currently written around).

There's probably quibbling to be done about the details, but I believe draft-gjessing is a good starting point for charter item 2.

Cheers,

Brian

> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

Attachment: signature.asc