Re: [Taps] IETF planning

On 22/10/2015 15:14, Aaron Falk wrote:
>
>     > 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.
>
>     +1, and FWIW that's exactly the same starting point I got to on my own.
>
>
> Any volunteers to kick off the lead the discussion?
>
>

<snip test on another draft>

So, I think UDP, and UDP-Lite *NEED* to be included. MPTCOP also.

On DCCP, this has many services being re-invented above. I think we have 
an interesting dilemma about whether to describe this, I suggest one of 
the reason for the minimal use of DCCP (DCCP/UDP) could well be the lack 
of a framework that allows this to be done without recoding an app. So, 
if we had such a framework *WHEN* DCCP/UDP was done, we may now have 
seen more usage.

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

Gorry