Re: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN BoF at IETF 56
Kacheong Poon <poon@cs.wisc.edu> Thu, 06 March 2003 03:33 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11528 for <trigtran-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:33:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h263hqD17544 for trigtran-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:43:52 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263hqO17541 for <trigtran-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:43:52 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11517 for <trigtran-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:32:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263hmO17533; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:43:48 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h263gGO17482 for <trigtran@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:42:16 -0500
Received: from parmesan.cs.wisc.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11449; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:30:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from poon@localhost) by parmesan.cs.wisc.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) id VAA14252; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:32:57 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:32:57 -0600
From: Kacheong Poon <poon@cs.wisc.edu>
Message-Id: <200303060332.VAA14252@parmesan.cs.wisc.edu>
To: spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com, trigtran@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN BoF at IETF 56
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Sender: trigtran-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: trigtran-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: trigtran@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trigtran>, <mailto:trigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Triggers for Transport <trigtran.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:trigtran@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trigtran>, <mailto:trigtran-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Included message from "Spencer Dawkins" <sdawkins@cynetanetworks.com>: >---- >Carl and I will be hosting a second TRIGTRAN BoF at IETF 56. > >The working copy of the BoF Agenda is available below (and is >being sent to agenda@ietf.org). > >We will present issues discussed in the Framework draft, available at >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-trigtran-framework-00.txt. I believe there will be a lot more comments if this announcement is also made to the tsvwg mailing list. So I cc this reply to that list. >This BoF is intended to lead to the formation of a TRIGTRAN working group, >so most of our time together will be dedicated to answering a series of >questions to figure out if we're doing the right thing. > >Please plan to attend and be opinionated. > >Spencer, for Spencer and Carl > >p.s. The Problem Statement draft will be available at >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-trigtran-probstmt-01.txt, >as soon as it's announced. The only changes we've made were updates to >reflect constraints in the minimal architecture model that we adopted >at IETF 55. > >p.p.s. The meeting minutes from the first BOF are available at >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/239.htm > >p.p.p.s. My e-mail address is changing to spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com, >effective immediately. .... >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? 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. 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. 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. > Form of Registrations > Form of Notifications > Allowable Responses to Notifications > Deployment Issues > Preliminary Security Assessment > >- Questions leading to a WG charter 50 minutes It seems that this should be the first agenda item. The reason is that if people don't even think that signal ("triggers") is the right mechanism to achieve what we want, it does not make sense to discuss a framework document. So maybe the two items should be swapped? > - is an end-to-end solution sufficient, > or do we really need help from the network? Or as mentioned above, can we have reasonable help from the network without some modifications to the current Internet architecture? Is a non-e2e solution sound? > - are explicit messages required? > - can we agree on the list of canonical triggers? I believe the above question should be broken up. We should first ask if there can be an agreed list of generic network events that we want transport to be aware of. And then we can look at the list and find out which one can be most likely "told" to transport. Lastly, we should find the most appropriate mechanism to do that given the current Internet architecture. A WG can be formed to achieve that. The above framework document can then be used as one of the documents describing one mechanism being investigated. I think that may be a more appropriate WG to be formed instead of a TRIGTRAN WG. I will not go to the IETF, so please count my vote as a NO to the formation of a TRIGTRAN WG, if that question will actually be asked. Or is the above problem still a research issue at this moment? > - can these triggers be generated by subnetwork technologies? > - can we agree on a list of reasonable responses? > - who would use TRIGTRAN notifications? (OMA, SIP, etc.)? > - who would implement a reasonable TRIGTRAN specification? > >- Next Steps leading to a TRIGTRAN working group 40 minutes > Volunteers > Documents > Timeline > Land Mines >---- K. Poon. _______________________________________________ Trigtran mailing list Trigtran@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trigtran
- [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN BoF at IETF 56 Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN BoF at IETF 56 Kacheong Poon
- Re: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN BoF at IETF 56 Spencer Dawkins