Re: [tcpm] Draft agenda for London

["Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brandon,

Our agenda is pretty full. Given the list discussion so far, I believe that an informal side meeting would make more sense (if somebody strongly disagrees with this, please speak up!). I guess nobody will prevent you from posting time and place on this list, if you wish that.

I'd be interested in attending a side meeting in order to better understand the use cases and vendor interoperability needs.

Thanks

Michael


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brandon Williams [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:25 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Dan Wing;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Draft agenda for London
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I can see that the schedules for both sessions are already quite full.
> That said, if there is any flexibility in the schedule for Monday's
> "Individual Drafts" session and if people on the list think that it
> would be a reasonable use of the time, we would be happy to prepare a
> short presentation focused on use-cases and vendor interoperability for
> the HOST_ID option. Our goal would be to facilitate discussion on
> whether or not it makes sense for us to pursue tcpm adoption of the
> I.D., as opposed to publishing the draft under individual contributor
> guidelines. If we give such a presentation, I think it would be about
> 20
> minutes worth of discussion.
> 
> If the time isn't available or attendees don't think that the time
> would
> be well spent, then I'll continue with my current plan of trying to get
> a bit of between-meeting facetime with the handful of people who have
> contributed the most to this discussion on the list.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Brandon
> 
> On 02/14/2014 08:52 AM, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote:
> > Hi Dirk,
> >
> > TCPM is an I*E*TF working group. As such, we we wonder whether there
> is an engineering need for TCPM standardization of an option, e.g.,
> instead of an individual document.
> >
> > One (potential) motivation for spending TCPM cycles would be a clear
> need for interoperability between different entities (e.g., products
> from multiple vendors), combined with the willingness to contribute to
> TCPM standardization and a high likelyhood of (commercial/Internet-
> scale) adoption of a TCPM standard, e.g., as replacement of existing
> proprietary solutions.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 14:28
> > An: Scharf, Michael (Michael); [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Betreff: RE: [tcpm] Draft agenda for London
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> > Thanks for the question: As far as I know my company does not have
> such plans - my interest is more an academic one being from research
> entity T-Labs.
> > In that sense I am eager to discuss aspects of 'reality check' for
> deployment of protocols making use of host_id or similar features which
> may help to improve a service (e.g. emergency caller location) while
> bearing danger of misuse (observation, tracking) and how to prevent
> that ...
> > Sorry for having raised unintended expectations potentially ;-(
> >
> > Best regards
> > Dirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scharf, Michael (Michael) [mailto:michael.scharf@alcatel-
> lucent.com]
> > Sent: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 11:39
> > To: von Hugo, Dirk; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [tcpm] Draft agenda for London
> >
> > Hi Dirk,
> >
> > Does Deutsche Telekom plan to deploy this option in their network? If
> so, could you perhaps provide details on the deployment and its use to
> the TCPM community (on the mailinglist)?
> >
> > The TCPM community has asked explicitly which vendors and network
> operators would indeed use this option in products, and, for what.
> Without further details, I do not understand what benefit a face-to-
> face discussion would have.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 10:45
> > Bis: Scharf, Michael (Michael); [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Betreff: RE: [tcpm] Draft agenda for London
> >
> > Hi all,
> > If that sounds like "we have time left for other discussion" I may
> propose to spend some time on the very recent and partially
> controversial opinion exchange on the host_id/NAT header modification
> issue described in draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-01.txt - just to
> quote the most recent ML contribution to be found here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg08568.html.
> > I am interested in the topic also because of other activities such as
> HIAPS https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiaps
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Or have I missed something?
> > My 2 cents
> > Best regards
> > Dirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tcpm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Scharf,
> Michael (Michael)
> > Sent: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 09:27
> > To: [e-mail]; Yuchung Cheng
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail] Extensions
> > Subject: Re: [tcpm] Draft agenda for London
> >
> > Very valid question. I was told that the draft will be updated.
> >
> > Some background: Given some interest in MPTCP, we thought that a
> technical discussion on tcpcrypt could make sense. However, due to
> additional WG conflicts, we realized that for this we actually need a
> second (very short) TCPM slot. Surprisingly, we then ended up with a
> much longer slot than what we asked for. As a result, and as noted
> earlier on this list, we actually have plenty of meeting time in London
> - more than we asked for. Now, since there was no shortage of time, we
> finally decided to approve the author's request of 60 min even if it
> significantly exceeds what TCPM is used to grant. So far, we also
> approved all other presentation requests with at least the requested
> time. Within the usual single TCPM slot, a 60 min request would not
> have been approved.
> >
> > Having said this, the agenda is tentative, and feedback is welcome.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 08:38
> > Bis: Yuchung Cheng
> > Cc: Scharf, Michael (Michael); [e-mail];
> [e-mail] Extensions
> > Betreff: Re: [tcpm] Draft agenda for London
> >
> > I think it would be good to understand why there is a 60 minute talk
> on something where the text has not changed at all since the last
> meeting.
> >
> > Gorry
> >
> >> On Feb 13, 2014 1:24 AM, "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <
> >> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Please find below the first draft for the TCPM agenda in London.
> >>> Since we
> >> received a request for an exceptionally long presentation, we
> decided
> >> to ask for a second TCPM time slot. We plan to discuss the WG drafts
> >> in the Thursday slot, while spending the Monday slot on individual
> submissions.
> >> Note that this is a tentative agenda and changes are still possible.
> >>>
> >>> Please let the chairs know if you have any suggestions or if we
> >>> missed
> >> something.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Michael, Pasi, Yoshifumi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ****** Draft Agenda ******
> >>>
> >>> TCPM meeting, IETF-89, London, UK
> >>>
> >>> Session 1: Monday, 0900-1130
> >>> ============================
> >>>
> >>> Individual Drafts
> >>> -----------------
> >>>
> >>> * Making TCP more Robust to Packet Reordering
> >>>    draft-zimmermann-tcpm-reordering-detection
> >>>    draft-zimmermann-tcpm-reordering-reaction
> >>>    Alexander Zimmermann
> >>>    30 min
> >>>
> >>> * Simpler and reordering resilient loss recovery
> >>>    (no draft)
> >>>    Yuchung Cheng
> >>>    20 min
> >>>
> >>> * tcpcrypt: the case for ubiquitous transport-level encryption
> >>>    draft-bittau-tcp-crypt
> >>>    Andrea Bittau
> >>>    60 min
> >> This draft was presented in Prague and Vancouver. Is this an update
> >> based on the feedbacks from prior meetings?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Session 2: Thursday, 1300-1500
> >>> ==============================
> >>>
> >>> WG Status
> >>> ---------
> >>>
> >>> * TCPM status
> >>>    Chairs
> >>>    10 min
> >>>
> >>> Working Group Items
> >>> -------------------
> >>>
> >>> * TCP Roadmap
> >>>    draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis
> >>>    Alexander Zimmermann
> >>>    10 min
> >>>
> >>> * Updating TCP to support Rate-Limited Traffic
> >>>    draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-05
> >>>    Gorry Fairhurst
> >>>    20 min
> >>>
> >>> * TCP and SCTP RTO Restart
> >>>    draft-ietf-tcpm-rtorestart-01
> >>>    Per Hurtig
> >>>    15 min
> >>>
> >>> * Problem Statement and Requirements for a More Accurate ECN
> Feedback
> >>>    draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-05
> >>>    Mirja Kuehlewind
> >>>    5 min
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Individual Drafts
> >>> -----------------
> >>>
> >>> * More Accurate ECN Feedback Solutions
> >>>    draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn
> >>>    draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn-option
> >>>    Richard Scheffenegger
> >>>    10 min
> >>>
> >>> * Timestamp negotiation and Clock exposure
> >>>    draft-trammell-tcpm-timestamp-interval
> >>>    draft-scheffenegger-tcpm-timestamp-negotiation
> >>>    Richard Scheffenegger
> >>>    15 min
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> tcpm mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tcpm mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> 
> --
> Brandon Williams; Senior Principal Software Engineer
> Emerging Products Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.