Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning


> On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
> 
> hi Aaron,
> 
>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 17:36, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Updating. Our agenda time is much more productive if we can home in on specific questions to discuss rather than just give document overviews. Authors & other folk: what’s interesting, unclear, or controversial here?
> 
> I think it's time to level up and have a discussion about "policy" and how it relates to TAPS.
> 
> I'm going to leave the definition of "policy" here deliberately vague with the hope that we can start to build some terminology around it at the meeting.

+1 to having a general discussion on the topic of policy (both application-specified and system-specified), likely following onto the presentation of intents. Getting a formal set of definitions would really help moving forward in our discussions.
> 
>> 
>> 	• draft-gjessing-taps-minset-05.txt
>> 
>> 		• There’s been some interesting discussion on the draft. Are there any specific topics we should set aside time to discuss?
>> 	• Socket Intents, Philipp
>> 
>> 		• Again, what specific topics should we discuss?
>> 		• We’ve been told to expect 3 drafts: on general concepts, BSD implementation, & communication granularity. What’s worth discussing?
> 
> Given the focus of the socket intents and granularity work, I think starting the policy discussion here makes sense.
> 
>> 	• Michio Honda HotNets paper “PASTE: Network Stacks Must Integrate with NVMM Abstractions”
>> 
>> 		• “These days I'm working on networking interface for non-volatile main memory (a.k.a. persistent memory and storage-class memory), because with such devices networking stack/API becomes a bottleneck in the end-to-end communication that involves persistent media (disk or SSDs for now). I saw some post-socket discussion in the minutes of the last meeting, so I wonder if this type of work could give some useful information to IETFers who design new transport API standards.”
>> 		• Is there interest in this topic? AFAIK, there’s no Internet Draft. I will inquire whether Michio intends to submit one.
> 
> IMO this is very interesting stuff. Might be better as a tsvarea presentation?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Brian
> 
>> 	• Transport Security Protocol Survey, Tommy

Since the security part of the protocols is a bit new in TAPS, we’ll probably want to give a bit of document overview, but I think the interesting discussion points here are in:
- The common features/interface presented by various security protocols
- The ability to separate security handshakes from data encryption

Thanks,
Tommy

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