IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] call for TAPS agenda items

"Philipp S. Tiesel" <phils@in-panik.de> Mon, 01 July 2019 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <phils@in-panik.de>
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 1F62C1200C4 for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 Kp1prlEX4nGk for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from einhorn-mail.in-berlin.de (einhorn-mail.in-berlin.de [217.197.80.20]) (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 A07C31200BA for <taps@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: phils@in-panik.de
Received: from x-berg.in-berlin.de (x-change.in-berlin.de [217.197.86.40]) by einhorn.in-berlin.de with ESMTPS id x61EHZfH023777 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:17:35 +0200
Received: from philipp-laptop.ods.tu-berlin.de ([130.149.141.20]) by x-berg.in-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <phils@in-panik.de>) id 1hhx5l-0007DU-1Y; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 16:15:37 +0200
From: "Philipp S. Tiesel" <phils@in-panik.de>
Message-Id: <55D72312-E8A8-4BD4-86E5-E9D57A9ECA45@in-panik.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D2A6C9E9-4362-4158-A67E-FE193E703E51"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 16:17:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <929381CF-E86F-41D5-B1BA-29C1B58171A9@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
References: <B5C441D6-096A-499D-A106-1C831FBD6000@gmail.com> <929381CF-E86F-41D5-B1BA-29C1B58171A9@ifi.uio.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/wQL3k7jisqpzps9kQIonsQQ-tuc>
Subject: Re: [Taps] call for TAPS agenda items
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 14:17:45 -0000


> On 30. Jun 2019, at 23:44, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sounds like a good start!
> 
> About this:
> 
>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 11:34 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com <mailto:aaron.falk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> What shall we use our face-time for in Montreal?
>> 
>> Some topics from our last interim <https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/nots-interim-2019-taps-02?useMonospaceFont=true> seem like good candidates for updates. Can we refine them with specific to discuss (and ID someone to launch/lead the discussion)?
>> 
>> Framing
>> Implementations
>> Parameters & Defaults
>> Yang model
>> Why do people resist specific protocol selection? (from Yang discussion)
> I’d volunteer to lead this discussion, but I wonder: is this really worth the time - as in: do we really (still) have any resistance to this idea?

Looks like… but I guess we have two different topics here:
 - Property Profiles (shortcuts for common sets of properties)
 - Explicit Protocol Selection

I originally insisted to keep them separate, as I really like to have the first one and feared the discussion for the second one. As I opened PRs with proposals for both of them (https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/328 <https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/328> and https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/327 <https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/327>), I got no fire and fury, but only constructive feedback.
So I agree with Michael that we may really have a short discussion on whether to add these features.

> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> 
>> ARCH & API open topics
>> --aaron
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taps mailing list
>> Taps@ietf.org <mailto:Taps@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> Taps@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

AVE!
   Philipp S. Tiesel

--
Philipp S. Tiesel
https://philipp.tiesel.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email