IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 05 July 2017 22:14 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 4A193127333 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZZy9H0wiyWzC for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 005FB127201 for <taps@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx05.uio.no ([129.240.10.49]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1dSsYu-0007o2-Ci; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:14:20 +0200
Received: from 234.133.189.109.customer.cdi.no ([109.189.133.234] helo=[192.168.1.8]) by mail-mx05.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1dSsYu-0009mx-0R; Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:14:20 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <1D39883A-FFBB-4D43-8834-D821AB47B401@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:14:32 +0200
Cc: "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7E01990A-EDDA-4C61-9DD5-374A3CF40245@ifi.uio.no>
References: <C582EEC8-8762-4CB6-9CA3-4E5AF92C5A68@gmail.com> <3A3686B5-FF60-448E-9E13-4B493B472C6D@gmail.com> <77C2BA95-F95B-4597-9159-7D5FC4068860@gmail.com> <0E3F9805-5513-40F8-ADB2-D5F550EC771A@ifi.uio.no> <1D39883A-FFBB-4D43-8834-D821AB47B401@gmail.com>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx05.uio.no: 109.189.133.234 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=109.189.133.234; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=[192.168.1.8];
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 4 sum msgs/h 2 total rcpts 56162 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=0.091, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 8A7508381D229C763402FEC53D826AD345D18CE3
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 109.189.133.234 spam_score: -48 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 1696 max/h 13 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/nRhseDDqdG8tMlzqL6V5hHFPaQE>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services <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, 05 Jul 2017 22:14:24 -0000

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:53, Michael Welzl wrote:
> 
>>>  1. **`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?
>>> 
>> 
>> I appreciated this discussion much, but personally I don’t think know of any specific topic that we need to discuss here - plus, there seem to be plenty of other good things to talk about which will all need time.
> 
> Fair enough.  In that case, my question is what it needed to finish the document?  Are there any open issues?

Well - IMO this version is a first “real complete” version - i.e. once the group reads, comments, and we incorporate fixes, we can be done quite quickly. I don’t think there’s anything truly major missing.

I’m happy about the first comments that have already come in, and we’ll address them in the next version (after Prague) - the most important thing being to work out a more comprehensive list of decisions to be taken *initially* (e.g. the reliability case that Philipp and Theresa pointed out, that’s a clear bug).

The draft will be presented by Naeem Khademi, who isn’t an author, on behalf of us authors. I hope that’s acceptable!  I’ll do my best to be remotely available for discussion too.

I think it makes sense for this presentation to focus on what’s new: the abstract API that we designed. I think this is an interesting thing with pretty straightforward yet important implications on other TAPS APIs (I’d hope).

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email