IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 12 September 2018 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 DF4A2130F0E; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:23:00 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 zNNKHX0a3cYz; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc34.google.com (mail-yw1-xc34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c34]) (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 9285A130EEB; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc34.google.com with SMTP id x67-v6so421698ywg.0; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kV2gbzetpgEfDRA0waMp1+X+XIE8dxDXAnrU7JKDBiQ=; b=DqnwI58HpAeNWbDblqrDuhhuCcDIkbuxW76+VUg6XbN7MeLOdpCLbajlaW8XW1gnjv 5rIZfM897akiZEoq1XjtJnWil5Mb1dr3JBnFd9fYRyWrJ0hWnY4itAqB7kJuDc74K6W1 qwqs8gYHgipCm8sNhHH9Z/rVwLBgw9G4Y53ftxx/U9SgxRwEN0ESWMjhokcnxG3CHONK 2+cjEGPbJ15O8JyVi+MsIAuiPr/V9TVD5gF/xb4P5SAQ+UlS4JR0R3ia68veQwFNUlvj sH6KrPqVZRou4R8q83EqyjXY8G/e/nZmZaUT3hh3GRVkEy5HcSpJllC2957s6cdgNyDb d6Eg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kV2gbzetpgEfDRA0waMp1+X+XIE8dxDXAnrU7JKDBiQ=; b=E+dOgDfQHUjaI7z46PS/5qUoB5c1h1smYrYlJTjvM99S3OTRZsEZkfYRUn4ji/GLbT d38/zDju+fcmiyAU9IAsz3rsThC+SWdITogRa8XrLtJJXh9wsL+FkbJEklqIA50z5HQW +aRwwJxQPOfzmhUmRj7XlxZ2jFfXIBgrY3+3UaGBl5JLNVS95OY9jDBJg8hKYH69F5NH F70J4LTeSYc/Dd49twwx+Ilz0PRUxQTKYfD41rCHIF/FdaZEhbtZ1686pshsB7yFF4Rx Nbc2cI15BDp9sTxzxVIyXN2OQ4B8IBDcCG4wbmwxhewYqZOxhQRmapBJwJWA81KFJEPi cfrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BoSXP2vr8H7HVOzAtmtysMMr6w0eU+CGlrIqRRrfRPmQ43NcaN 1/x/PS2veputjxUz/lahsco5tZBQXvx5NL8kqTT/zQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdaK5JlUHpLTQNKTXbek+B0NTi/ggAi8NVT7oJof3atZidKsFxdOwBDBtumz/ICMJdASqqTDaECHC7bSFts60+4=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:530a:: with SMTP id h10-v6mr2126353ywb.411.1536794577621; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153678015751.9346.17511699926997513174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <153678015751.9346.17511699926997513174.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 18:22:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dHdo+eqQMthS5yti1GgaBzfkf2RHyHCDRt08p-fbDN9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-taps-minset@ietf.org, taps-chairs@ietf.org, Theresa Enghardt <theresa@inet.tu-berlin.de>, taps WG <taps@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e45a8f0575b4dee2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/hd_sVraLdEMjZ3zvspIvqumbYcY>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Sep 2018 23:23:08 -0000

Hi, Alissa,

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:22 PM Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-minset/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was wondering about why this document is going for informational rather
> than
> proposed standard. I see that draft-ietf-taps-interface-01 has a normative
> reference to it, so this is effectively setting up a downref situation.
> That
> isn't necessarily a problem, but if the point is for this document to
> recommend
> an actual minimal set of transport services to be supported and exposed
> via the
> API specified in draft-ietf-taps-interface and other APIs, shouldn't that
> set
> be normative?
>

Understood. I'll need to talk about this with the TAPS chairs, and that
won't happen before the telechat tomorrow morning, but I will talk with the
TAPS chairs, and you'll have an answer.

(So, "do we need to discuss that on this telechat?", "no, the Discuss is
clear and actionable". - just to save wear and tear on the Secretariat!)

Thanks,

Spencer


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It seems like this document will be in need of updating once QUIC is
> published.
> Is the plan to publish this now and then publish an update next year? Why
> is
> that preferable to waiting and just publishing once?
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email