Re: [Udp35] TAPS BOF and moving the transport API forward

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

hi Spencer, all,

On 26 May 2014, at 23:47, Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On 05/26/2014 04:16 PM, Brian Trammell wrote:
>> hi Spencer, all,
>> 
>> a quick response to one point, inline; more later...
>> 
>> On 26 May 2014, at 18:55, Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> My understanding on how and why the
>>>>> group meets would depends on understanding more of this thread.
>>>> The intention of the meeting on Saturday is more or less to continue the discussion we're having right now, in person, in front of a whiteboard; the format is "by-invitation brainstorming session" as opposed to an IAB workshop, for example, mainly because the whiteboard's there, and larger workshops are less productive per unit time.
>>> On openness ... nothing we've talked about is a secret from the community.
>> Indeed, the list archives are also open.
>> 
>>> We created this mailing list because we had enough person-to-person e-mail flying around about next steps that we needed one, but this isn't a cabal. The IETF doesn't do that, except in places like Nomcom.
>>> 
>>> The IAB actually can restrict participation - open IAB workshop calls for participation/papers are a relatively recent innovation. So I'm hoping the IAB does consider this to be a workshop, but of course I don't control that ("please do the right thing").
>> We're calling the Saturday evening thing a "side meeting" as opposed to a "workshop", as there was no call for position papers or vetting thereof, rather invitation sent to people we figured would have something to say, given where we think the problem lies (if you're on this list, you're invited, apologies if that's not been clear).
>> 
>> To elaborate on what I said in my previous message: the _sole_ reason for doing it this way as opposed to with an open call is to limit the _number_ rather than the _set_ of people in the room, because we know what we have is kind of a vague and uncooked idea, and we would like a chance to talk it over with a small group of knowledgable people who've thought a lot about the space before taking it to the wider community. As we're seeing in this thread, there's a _whole lot_ of overlap with TAPS, and a few ideas we think are architecturally related but which don't quite fit, and we'd like to figure out the best way to get everything that needs to get done to address this problem done.
> 
> Brian, thanks for connecting the dots. It is complicated.
> 
> I'd like to see _something_ to happen on the IETF side, between now and Toronto, without interfering with what the IAB is doing on the bigger picture.
> 
> That's why I'm encouraging Michael and co-conspirators to propose a minimal charter that would allow protocol work to get started.

(no hat) Given where the discussion here has gone, I could support the formation of a TAPS WG along these lines, and contribute to the bits of this whole effort that fit under the charter within that WG.

> Just to unmuddle the next muddle - I was hoping that we would have a UDP35 conference call really soon, so we can be preparing for the side meeting in Toronto, and not be starting from scratch on Saturday evening. I expected we'd talk through the notes you sent to the mailing list last week, as a starting point.
> 
> I had planned to send out a Doodle poll today, so we could get the conference call scheduled, but, without interfering with what the IAB is doing on the bigger picture am now thinking that you and Joe need to be there, so I should start with dates/times that work for you. Could you two suggest a few date/times?

I've put together a Doodle for this: http://doodle.com/phxegtcdgw5hgaig -- this is based on my calendar availability only, today, tomorrow, and Monday, evenings CET / hopefully not-too-early mornings west coast US.

Cheers,

Brian