Re: [Taps] IETF planning

[Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>]

> On 19. okt. 2015, at 20.44, Aaron Falk <[e-mail]> 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.


> 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).

Cheers,
Michael