Re: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN BoF at IETF 56

Just a couple of points on Kacheong's note:

Spencer

--- Kacheong Poon <poon@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >AGENDA:
> >
> >- Agenda Bashing								10 minutes
> >
> >- Issues identified in TRIGTRAN Framework draft			20 minutes
> >	Constraints of Minimal Architecture
> 
> Or is it really the constraint of the current Internet
> architecture?  Many researchers are already looking at
> the next generation Internet and this is probably one
> area where they will work on.  So is it really reasonable
> for this proposed WG to solve an architecture problem?
> Or is what people actually want something not constrained
> by the current Internet architecture?

No, this is actually a topic requested by some people who have
asked "what about links that aren't access links?" and similar
questions. It's just explaining why we excluded some topologies
from consideration.

> 
> IMHO, trigger is the wrong name to use.  Pardon my English,
> but to me, trigger means an immediate response to a certain
> event.  But maybe the only thing we can do is to provide
> some form of signal, does not necessarily need to be
> immediate,
> to the end points.  Signalling message seems to be a more
> appropriate name.

You may very well be correct, that we might think of a more
helpful name (although I note, tongue-in-cheek, that Signalling
for Transport/SIGTRAN seems to be previously occuppied - sorry,
Lyndon!)

> 
> Anyway, it seems to me that what people want here is to have a
> way for transport to find out a little bit more about the
> network
> so that it can react more effectively to different network
> events.
> And using signals ("triggers") to do that can be one
> mechanism.

This is my understanding also.

> 
> Should a TRIGTRAN WG be formed now if there can be other
> mechanisms
> to do that?  Should we evaluate them before making a decision
> on
> which one to use, signalling being one?  Another obvious
> mechanism,
> as opposed to active signal, is polling by transport on some
> network elements.  I am not suggesting that it is better or
> worse
> (probably worse (-:) than active signal.  But I believe
> setting
> up a WG at this point without even some discussion and
> evaluation
> on other mechanisms is not the appropriate thing to do.

I'm not sure that I've done a good job of making something
clear, so let me try here:

The framework draft Carl and I put together is (at most) one way
the problem might be addressed. I'm very clear in my mind that
it's not baseline for a working group draft, with as little
discussion as we've had on some of the approaches. 

If $TRIGTRAN (or a more suitable name) is chartered, I'd expect
the charter to include a more rigorous requirements document,
and I'd be asking for other frameworks (maybe not polling, but
I'm sure there's something! perhaps defining a standardized
mechanism for link-up, and end-to-end messaging beyond link-down
and link-up? but I'm getting ahead of where the discussion has
been, at least to date).

So, to be clearer than I have been in the past, Carl and I
aren't tied to a particular working group name, set of
requirements, or set of protocol mechanisms, at this time.
Please send text!

Thanks for your feedback, and for your suggestions on a detailed
way forward.

Spencer, for Spencer and Carl

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Trigtran mailing list
Trigtran@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trigtran