Re: [Udp35] Trying to learn about udp35

[Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

First of all, thank you Spencer for sharing this!

More below:

On 22. mai 2014, at 10:37, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Hi, Michael (and all),
> 
> I've seen notes from Joe and Brian, but I'm replying to yours.
> 
> The most important thing I've seen someone say is ... please don't stop the analysis work you're doing on piece A, on the TAPS mailing list. We set up a separate mailing list for big-picture noodling about several pieces and how they fit together, so that our conversation here wouldn't be a distraction for TAPS.
> 
> Creating one or more working groups isn't the end game, so let's not be distracted by that, either. Figuring out how to solve an important problem that people have been banging their heads against for a few decades, and get applications to take advantage of transport mechanisms that aren't TCP and aren't UDP so that evolving transport makes a difference to the way the Internet works, is the end game, at least in my mind. We don't need to have a BOF at all, if we can come up with a plan without one.
> 
> If not having a working group creates obstructions, please let us know. For now, TAPS has an e-mail list and can do the analysis work there. You don't have an approved charter yet, but TAPS doesn't need one to talk. You don't need an approved charter to have a design session in Toronto, assuming that you don't need 100 people charging their laptops and reading e-mail in the same room while people make Powerpoint presentations to make progress. If TAPS needs something else to move forward, please tell us.

This seems problematic. I have given this quite some thought now. At first, I thought I'd just create a list of things we need, and we can get going. Here's what came to my mind:

1. Motivation. People need to know the context of what's going on, I need to send them a "formal" email telling them some conclusion after the BoF; right now nobody does anything as everybody is just waiting. By "need to know the context" I mean that TAPS needs to know which RFCs will be produced, with what status. We'd have to refine the charter just to have a plan - e.g. right now we have a number of drafts, what do we do with them? Merge some, kill some? That would depend on the plan, which is the charter. But can we be sure that RFCs are really going to be published, and really get the status we wish for, when it's only a "wish" and not an approved charter? I think not being a WG will leave people unsure about these matters.

- Management. There need to be chairs, ideally not myself.

More about motivation: I recently visited another University which is interested in this work. Being IETF-experienced academics, they could be very helpful in TAPS, and I see them as representative for a larger group of (potential) TAPS participants. When I talked to them about TAPS, their whole take was "isn't the IETF getting obsolete? Will this EVER happen? Aren't we better off just doing research on our own?" but yet they were very interested **BECAUSE** of the prospect of this being a WG, which, to them, is an indication of the IETF really wanting to make a change.

However, if I imagine how they'd react to "this is just a mailing list now, we can meet anyway and perhaps publish RFCs too without being a WG, let's just get work done" then I'm not very hopeful. After all, a WG also comes with a certain visibility that reflects in e.g. project reviews and project proposals written by academics. In other words, being involved in a WG has more value to them (any academic - and academics, I think, could play a valuable role here) than being involved in a less formal activity.

To conclude: you wrote "if not having a working group creates obstructions, please let us know" => frankly, I actually do believe that this approach will create significant disappointment and will let us lose some key people early on. Now I can imagine that WGs can be slow, with too many people involved, discussions ratholing, etc. etc. - but then there is the positive value of a certain visibility, an IETF-approved charter, some trust on behalf of the folks involved that what comes out has at least SOME chance of deployment...  all in all, I do think we really should create a WG, and maybe eliminate slow-ness by just narrowing the charter accordingly.


> I think the TAPS conversation in London was successful in setting a direction. My read is that at least some of the other IESG and IAB members agree with that. I note that TAPS was one of only two topics from the IESG for the joint IESG/IAB session at the retreat a couple of weeks ago, and joint IESG/IAB face-to-face time is precious enough that we don't spend it on stuff that doesn't matter.
> 
> The IAB folk can correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the UDP35 topics is that IAB folk are proposing that the IAB charter a program in this space *in addition to TAPS*, and I would like to see them providing a home for architectural work beyond "here's a protocol spec or two", which is what an IETF working group would provide. I'd like to have the IAB's perspective inform any engineering work the IESG charters in the IETF.
> 
> For the purposes of the UDP35 discussion, I don't want the Saturday afternoon session in Toronto to be the tail that wags the dog. The reason we mention it at all was to let people know we'd like to have that session before everyone books their tickets to arrive Sunday morning:-)
> 
> We need to be talking now, mostly in e-mail. We do need to level-set early in that conversation, and that's harder to do via e-mail. I would like to see a kickoff call among the folks on this mailing list, and sooner rather than later. I hope scheduling it during the week of June 2 is realistic.
> 
> If no one else sends out a doodle poll this week for a kickoff call the week of June , I'll do it Monday.

Sounds all good to me...

Cheers,
Michael

> 
> Does this make sense?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer, who will be traveling for the next several hours ... so please, don't wait for me to talk amongst yourselves :-)
> 
> On 05/21/2014 12:05 PM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Glad to be onboard!
>> 
>> As for the slide deck, it looks very interesting but it also reminds me of much that we have already discussed in the TAPS effort. Note that this non-WG-forming BOF in London was preceded by a bar BOF, which was preceded by more work ... e.g. we have worked out a draft charter at some point, and agreed to do things pretty similar to what seems to be proposed in these slides. Now surely I'm missing the bigger picture here, but I'd like to make a plea to not go back to square one but instead continue from where things already are at (see https://sites.google.com/site/transportprotocolservices/ ). If this means having a WG-forming BoF in Toronto, then I guess it's about time to get this organized.
>> 
>> I can imagine that we want to do more than what we have written into our charter, but what I'm suggesting is not to wait with piece A of the puzzle just because we in fact want pieces A, B and perhaps C too, and we have to still find out if/how to do pieces B and C. I'm having a hard time imagining that piece A just won't fit, whatever B and C may look like, so why not get A done?!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>> On 21. mai 2014, at 12:30, Brian Trammell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> hi Jana, all,
>>> 
>>> Apologies for silence to date on this point; I'm traveling way too much this month. The basic problem statement is hidden in the slide deck I presented at the IESG/IAB meeting in Cancun, attached. We'll want to have a level setting call (most probably early next week) to expand upon this.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>> <udp35-cancun.pdf>
>>> On 20 May 2014, at 19:54, Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the update, Spencer; I'll look for the poll. I would like to make travel arrangements soon, and I'm waiting to hear about when the pre-IETF meeting will be held so that I can book accordingly. I'd like to book soon, so I hope to hear about the schedule soon ... but if nothing's been finalized yet, I understand.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 05/13/2014 10:47 AM, Jana Iyengar wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm writing to learn more about udp35 and the secret cabal meeting that is allegedly happening Saturday evening before the IETF. Can someone post a link or some summary of the goals of this group?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks much!
>>>> - jana
>>>> 
>>>> Hi, Jana,
>>>> 
>>>> If I understood correctly, the plan is that we'll schedule a conference call Real Soon Now to level-set folks, just as soon as someone sends out a doodle poll so we can figure out when :-)
>>>> 
>>>> So, please stay tuned ...
>>>> 
>>>> Spencer
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Udp35 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/udp35
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Udp35 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/udp35
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Udp35 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/udp35
>