Re: [Taps] Protocol Action: 'An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport Services' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-taps-interface-26.txt)

Oh my god. I have a hole in my life now. :-D > On Apr 18, 2024, at 11:29 AM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has approved the following document: > - 'An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport Services' > (draft-ietf-taps-interface-26.txt) as Proposed Standard > > This document is

Re: [Taps] Last Call: (An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport Services) to Proposed Standard

> On Feb 17, 2024, at 11:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > On 18-Feb-24 00:00, Michael Welzl wrote: >> Dear Brian, >> I’ll leave it for others to publicly answer your items 1. and 2., but for >> 3., I wanted to say that we do have an overview of implementa

Re: [Taps] Last Call: (An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport Services) to Proposed Standard

Dear Brian, I’ll leave it for others to publicly answer your items 1. and 2., but for 3., I wanted to say that we do have an overview of implementations; we thought it would fit best in the companion document that’s focused on implementation, so this is where it is:

Re: [Taps] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-taps-interface-24: (with COMMENT)

024, at 11:13 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > This all looks good. Thanks for the long write up. > > Once you have published an updated draft, I will move my Ballot to Yes. > > Paul > > > Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone > >> On Jan 2, 2024, at 07:44,

Re: [Taps] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-taps-interface-24: (with COMMENT)

Dear Paul, I now see what happened here. I have made this harder to track by answering the DISCUSS items only in my email - when, in fact, we have addressed or at least discussed everything on github. I’m sorry! There were so many emails, I also didn’t want to make the answers too long. As a

Re: [Taps] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-interface-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Paul, We have addressed all discuss as well as comment items by splitting emails up into github issues, and discussed and handled them all there. As part of the process of addressing so many comments, it seems we have overlooked that we never actually formulated an email response to you;

Re: [Taps] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-interface-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Dec 12, 2023, at 6:48 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Hi Lars, > > Responses inline. > > >> On Dec 12, 2023, at 3:38 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks for the replies. I'll trim my response to only those items where I >> still have questions. >> >> On Nov 14, 2023, at

[Taps] TAPS and higher-level APIs

Dear all, Looking at this: > On Nov 13, 2023, at 10:24 PM, Michael Welzl wrote: > > +1 … thanks a whole lot to everyone, it’s been a fun ride! > > For some nostalgia, more detailed history is here: > https://sites.google.com/site/transportprotocolservices/home > <

Re: [Taps] Taps working group status and way forward

+1 … thanks a whole lot to everyone, it’s been a fun ride! For some nostalgia, more detailed history is here: https://sites.google.com/site/transportprotocolservices/home Preceding the two BoFs on this page, and not even documented

Re: [Taps] All issues filed (and some are already closed)

Who wouldn’t! *wipes the sweat off his forehead* :-) > On 22 Sep 2023, at 11:42, Zaheduzzaman Sarker > wrote: > > Thanks Michael!! Lets get all those "closed". > > I would like to push these document through as soon as possible. > > //Zahed > >

[Taps] All issues filed (and some are already closed)

Hi, I double-checked, and now I’m quite certain that we now have open issues (or: they were filed, and now they're already closed!) for all the reviews that have come in, in our github repo: https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues?page=3=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen

Re: [Taps] Robert Wilton's Yes on draft-ietf-taps-interface-22: (with COMMENT)

Hi, My 2 cents below - but note, I’m an individual who wasn’t even a chair, so this is just an “outside” opinion: > On Sep 6, 2023, at 5:59 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 11:02 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker > mailto:zahed.sarker.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023

Re: [Taps] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-taps-interface-22: (with COMMENT)

Dear Éric, Many thanks - to you, as well as all the people you mention! Regarding the “I would appreciate a reply by the authors, esp on issue 1” to Tatuya Jinmei’s review: working on it :-) Regarding your other comments (really *all* comments, including all others from Tatuya Jinmei): I

Re: [Taps] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

cussion, do > not worry too much), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. > > Special thanks to Michael Welzl for the shepherd's detailed write-up including > the WG consensus and the justification of th

Re: [Taps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-taps-interface-20

Dear Thomas, I want to thank you very much for this extremely detailed review, and also apologize for not answering this for so long - it has somehow fallen through the cracks as we dealt with all the reviews, in fact because it arrived so early! We merged your PR but I forgot that there was

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-impl-16.txt

s. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Transport Services >> (TAPS) WG of the IETF. >> >> Title : Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services >> Authors : Anna Brunstrom >> Tommy Pauly >>Reese Enghardt &

Re: [Taps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-taps-impl-15

> On May 11, 2023, at 3:49 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > > Michael Welzl writes: >>> On Apr 13, 2023, at 8:32 PM, Dale Worley via Datatracker >>> wrote: >>> So to fix this, I recommend that the authors go through the text >>> looking for modal wor

[Taps] The last two reviews... issues for one of them are now filed in github

Friends and fans of TAPS, esteemed colleagues, > On May 9, 2023, at 7:39 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > > Dear Dale, > > Many thanks for this very thoughtful review! (and sorry for the delay) > I’ll give some answers below, as an author of the -impl and an editor of the >

Re: [Taps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-taps-impl-15

Dear Dale, Many thanks for this very thoughtful review! (and sorry for the delay) I’ll give some answers below, as an author of the -impl and an editor of the -interface document - I hope my co-authors will agree with me, or comment if they do not. > On Apr 13, 2023, at 8:32 PM, Dale Worley

Re: [Taps] Transport Services (taps) WG Virtual Meeting: 2023-05-15

Hi, Not related to presentations, BUT: we also have some work to do: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/ijkQhWRrGkWfS-cxx_2ylPrEEGA/ and:

Re: [Taps] Normative language change in the Interface document (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-interface-19.txt)

ts: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-taps-arch-16 >>>> >>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-taps-interface-19 >>>> >>>> https://author-tools.ietf.or

Re: [Taps] Heads-up: Should we conclude TAPS after the three docs are done?

Hi ! I would love to have an interim. These are the things that I personally would like to discuss: 1) what could we now do to foster deployment of this? 2) is anyone really planning to write an http mapping document, ever? this would have to be (and should be easy for!) someone with the right

Re: [Taps] Normative language change in the Interface document (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-interface-19.txt)

itle : An Abstract Application Layer Interface to >> Transport Services >> Authors : Brian Trammell >> Michael Welzl >> Theresa Enghardt >> Godred Fairhurst >>

[Taps] shepherd writeup for -arch draft

Hi everyone! I’m now done with the shepherd writeup for the -arch draft; see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-arch/shepherdwriteup/ and below. If any WG contributors have issues with the text here, please

Re: [Taps] tapping taps talent for teaching?

Hi, I sent Jon some slides in private - happy to send to others if they want, just get in touch! Regarding papers, since this seems to be a seminar, here are a few that might be useful: A general introduction: Michael Welzl, Safiqul Islam, Michael Gundersen, Andreas Fischer: "Tran

[Taps] Transport protocol racing in Network Framework

Hi everyone, My work day is just beginning, and already, my morning has really been brightened up by this (somewhat implicit) announcement of transport protocol racing in Network Framework! https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2022/10078/

Re: [Taps] Artart early review of draft-ietf-taps-impl-12

Dear Bron, Many thanks for this, this was extremely useful! Two of your comments relate to normative language, and I think they may require more discussion. To this end, I just opened issue #1037: https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/1037 To address the others, I just created PR

Re: [Taps] Taps via lwIP

Hi, I must admit that I don’t know anything about nim, but I found it interesting the first time this was mentioned (by you? Sorry, I don’t remember). It looks quite interesting to me, and of course it’s great to see implementations. Many thanks for this update! Cheers, Michael > On Feb 26,

Re: [Taps] Conflict with next meeting - Jan 26

Sorry, it seems I probably should also have answered back to everyone, not only Aaron - so, again: both work equally well for me. > On 17 Jan 2022, at 09:57, Philipp S. Tiesel wrote: > > Hi, > > same here – I could make teh 26th, but would prefer to move to Feb. 2nd. > > AVE! >Philipp

Re: [Taps] Early TAPS Implementation in Go, Feedback Welcome

Dear all, I have to apologize: I had been in touch with Thorben before, and already answered him regarding the “Notes on Implementation” directly, in a private, German email. That was unconstructive! I should have sent it here and saved Reese some work - it seems that this reflects almost

Re: [Taps] Artart early review of draft-ietf-taps-interface-13

> On 17 Sep 2021, at 22:57, Robert Sparks via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: On the Right Track > > This is an art-art early review of draft-ietf-taps-interface > > This document reads fairly well. I have some structural concerns (see the > early > review

Re: [Taps] Request early reviews on -arch and -interface?

Hi ! I may not know enough about IETF strategy and time planning… but - in principle: I guess it would be useful to avoid getting the same comments twice. Right now, for -interface (-arch is almost done?!) we have only a handful of PRs to land (mostly easy cases, it seems to me), and a good

Re: [Taps] DTN & TAPS

Sorry, answering myself: > On Apr 26, 2021, at 8:29 PM, Michael Welzl wrote: > > Hi, > > >> On Apr 25, 2021, at 11:49 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't >> > <mailto:Ronald.intVelt=40tno...@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Aaron, >> I w

Re: [Taps] DTN & TAPS

Hi, > On Apr 25, 2021, at 11:49 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't > wrote: > > Hi Aaron, > I was marveling the news about exploration on Mars this week and this caused > me to wonder if anyone has looked at DTN as a protocol provided by TAPS. My > recollection of DTN is rather rusty and I think

[Taps] A TAPS paper

Hi all, I’d like to share this paper on TAPS, which we recently got accepted for publication in the April issue of IEEE Communications Magazine: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11035 We wrote this to introduce ongoing TAPSisms to the outside world, and give an impression of how easy it can be to

Re: [Taps] TAPS Interface draft - Publish before draft deadline on Feb 22 (Monday)?

Hi, IMO yes, we can merge these two PRs and go ahead. I’d appreciate if someone who’s a little less clumsy than me with the toolchain could do the actual submission (recently, Tommy) - but if need be, I can make it happen too. Cheers, Michael > On Feb 19, 2021, at 6:33 PM, Theresa Enghardt

Re: [Taps] Open source activities?

… and then there’s NEAT. NEAT was a European project, active until 2018, which started almost exactly in sync with TAPS, and went along, building code. The NEAT project page is here: https://www.neat-project.org and the code is here: https://github.com/NEAT-project/neat It’s a TAPS type of

Re: [Taps] Review of taps-interface

Thanks so much for doing this! This was meant as a todo item for us, or me, not you! Cheers, Michael Sent from my iPhone > On 7 Aug 2020, at 18:25, Martin Duke wrote: > >  > OK, I'll file github issues > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:21 AM Michael Welzl wrote: >&g

Re: [Taps] Review of taps-interface

Hi Martin, Thanks much for this detailed review! - and for the many interesting questions you’re raising; you discovered a few important holes there. E.g., I believe we just haven’t discussed stream limits; I would have thought that that’s an implementation matter, but the fact that you

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-interface-09.txt

: An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport > Services >Authors : Brian Trammell > Michael Welzl > Theresa Enghardt > Godred Fairhurst > Mirja Kue

[Taps] NEAT is dead... long live NEATPy !

Dear all, It’s my pleasure to announce NEATPy: a Python-based implementation of TAPS over NEAT. https://github.com/theagilepadawan/NEATPy Most of you have probably heard of NEAT before - it was a European research project which implemented much of

Re: [Taps] May interim (mea culpa)

Hi, I’ve been digging for minutes a bit. In the email below, Aaron says that he has no notes from the April meeting at this URL: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-taps-interim-2020-apr but I found them them now! ...at this URL:

Re: [Taps] Should TAPS meet during IETF-108?

I agree (says a man who didn’t get to do anything at all since our last interim :-( but, still, …) Cheers, Michael > On May 26, 2020, at 4:17 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Dear TAPS working group & ADs, > > Scheduling has begun for the online IETF-108 meeting in July. Should we > request

Re: [Taps] UDP rendezvous

eness. > > As I haven't been active in TAPS, I would appreciate any pointers to where the > WG is in regards to the need for parameter exchange that need to be done by > the > application using the TAPS interface, rather than letting the lower layers > handle that aspect.

Re: [Taps] UDP rendezvous

> On Apr 27, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Colin Perkins wrote: > > > >> On 27 Apr 2020, at 12:38, Michael Welzl wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I’m answering this email, but Magnus, consider yourself answered too with a >> big THANK YOU for your thorough exp

Re: [Taps] UDP rendezvous

Hi, I’m answering this email, but Magnus, consider yourself answered too with a big THANK YOU for your thorough explanation! I agree that we want some (much!) of this functionality “under the hood” if possible. And, of course, I agree that we don’t want the application to be aware of e.g. UDP

[Taps] UDP rendezvous

Dear all, I know way too little about rendezvous mechanisms, so I may get this completely wrong - please bear with me! It may be that I describe an issue that’s a non-issue. But, if I do understand this right, maybe that’s something which needs fixing? Ok, here it goes… Our current Rendezvous

Re: [Taps] Kyle Rose's review of the API draft

Hi, > On Apr 2, 2020, at 10:42 PM, Kyle Rose wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:54 AM Michael Welzl <mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no>> wrote: > Hi, > > I sifted through the review now, trying to address some easy things, removing > some more things that were alre

[Taps] Kyle Rose's review of the API draft

Hi, I sifted through the review now, trying to address some easy things, removing some more things that were already addressed, creating issues for things that require some discussion… as a result, we now have new PR #515, issues #520 - #526, and here is one item thatI’d like to check with

Re: [Taps] April interim: call for agenda items

Hi, Regarding Kyle’s review, I think this should fall under the heading of “issue review”. I’m planning to look at these again soon, addressing easy ones in a PR, removing points of agreement… and whatever remains, unless some bigger things warrant a list discussion, I thought I'd post as

[Taps] Measurements of the chance of network traversal for non-TCP protocols

Hi all, I thought I’d point you at a paper that we just got published: a measurement study with the goal to better understand which protocols and encapsulations might be a good idea to consider for racing. We (authors) just received this URL from Elsevier, telling us that we could share it, as

Re: [Taps] draft-ietf-taps-interface-05 review

Hi, A few comments in line: > On Mar 4, 2020, at 5:51 PM, Philipp S. Tiesel wrote: > > Hi, > > Some of the remaining issues had already been discussed, but either did not > lead to text or the text was lost. Let me comment on these issues: > >>> On 4. Mar

Re: [Taps] draft-ietf-taps-interface-05 review

Dear Kyle, Thanks so much for all your comments - and sorry for taking so long to get back to you! I decided to begin attacking them now with a PR. Please see: https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/514 for the comments that I tried to address, my answers to them, and the changes that

Re: [Taps] Authors' meeting, Friday 08:30 - 10:00, VIP B (IAB room)

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 11:15 PM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: > > Greetings, all > > The Friday time, it turns out, is less than ideal; I’ll have trouble showing > up early enough to be useful and at least one other author told me they’d > have to bow out of a breakfast meeting to make it.

Re: [Taps] finishing things

e to actually set the schedule > for these interims, to avoid the ”let’s think about that later” problem. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 16 Nov 2019, at 15:13, Michael Welzl wrote: >> >> I think this is a great idea. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael &g

Re: [Taps] finishing things

I think this is a great idea. Cheers, Michael > On Nov 16, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Hey Working Group, > > Before we meet on Tuesday I wanted to put an idea on the table that I think > will shape our wg discussion. What do you think of setting a goal of WGLC for > our three

Re: [Taps] TAPS Sept 2019 Interim Scheduling

Seriously, do we all think we need this interim (or, that we all need it already in September, and not maybe e.g. a month from now)? I haven't seen a lot of activity post-IETF in the repository. Speaking for myself, I don't have time available for TAPS drafts within the next week, but I did

Re: [Taps] On Profiles for TAPS Preconnections

> On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Max Franke wrote: > > > > The API prescribed by this document is abstract, and needs to give freedom to > implementations to make things elegant in their particular languages. > > What about having an appending, that's non-normative and not required for RFC

Re: [Taps] Draft should point at existing implementations

Hi, I added a comment to this issue because I saw it on your slides, to explain: this isn’t really worth discussing. I meant it only as a “todo item” for myself and assigned it to me. I’ll do it when I do my planned next update on the implementation draft (which this is about). Sorry, I guess

Re: [Taps] call for TAPS agenda items

> On Jul 2, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > > On 2 Jul 2019, at 3:24, Michael Welzl wrote: > > * Parameters & Defaults > > I’d volunteer for this one too. > > Michael- > > Can you frame a question or decision we want to target for the discussion

Re: [Taps] call for TAPS agenda items

Hi again, > On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Philipp S. Tiesel wrote: > > > >> On 30. Jun 2019, at 23:44, Michael Welzl > <mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Sounds like a good start! >> >> About this: &

Re: [Taps] call for TAPS agenda items

Hi, Sounds like a good start! About this: > On Jun 30, 2019, at 11:34 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > > What shall we use our face-time for in Montreal? > > Some topics from our last interim > > seem like good candidates

[Taps] github "Editor's copy" links

Hi, Since the move, the "Editor's Copy" links, which produce these very nicely formatted versions of the latest document version, don't work anymore. Specifically: the "Editor's Copy" links from here: https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts lead to e.g. here:

Re: [Taps] call for agenda items at TAPS IETF-104

present something in Prague, and can you please put me > on the schedule, Aaron? > > More responses inline with , and thanks, these > questions were very helpful to help me focus on what needs > explaining vs. what's obvious. > > > On 2019-03-07, 00:32, "Michael Welzl

Re: [Taps] call for agenda items at TAPS IETF-104

Hi, Very sorry for the silence. I can only speak for myself, but here's an example of why this one person was silent: - When you created your issue on multicast in github, I thought of answering (positively), but then thought that the repo is about to move, and it would probably be better to

[Taps] draft-ietf-taps-interface-latest: soliciting text

Hi all, As promised during the interim, Brian and I did a pass over the open issues related to the API draft on github. After closing, some, commenting some, pinging some people we are now left with three issues that have nobody assigned, yet they don't seem to need further discussion,

Re: [Taps] Transport Services (taps) WG Virtual Meeting: 2019-01-15

Hi, I agree. Regarding the API, to make a concrete proposal: one of the things we didn’t get to, in Bangkok, is caching: Slide 4: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-taps-4-draft-ietf-taps-archimplinterface-topics-00 There’s this PR that’s been open for a long time

Re: [Taps] Draft WG Agenda for Bangkok

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 5:19 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Looking for responses to the questions below. Hullo! > > On 22 Oct 2018, at 11:57, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Draft agenda below. Some questions: > > Who will lead discussion of wg doc topics (#4)? > I’ll be there; I can do this. Cheers,

Re: [Taps] QUIC API for WebRTC

> On 11 Oct 2018, at 23:14, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for sharing! We recently saw this too, and my impression is similar. > Ideally, from a WebRTC application's perspective, we should have a TAPS > system that helps set up ICE, determines which protocol stack to use >

Re: [Taps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-10

actually behave differently based > on the Transport Services provided. > I think it is more likely that the Apps Orchestration System needs to request > the supported "Transport Services" to determine if the Apps can be running in > the environment. > > Linda &g

Re: [Taps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-10

was able to clear up the misunderstanding?! Cheers, Michael > > Linda > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Welzl [mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no] > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 3:49 PM > To: Linda Dunbar > Cc: ops-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-taps-minset@ie

Re: [Taps] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with COMMENT)

Done, with version -10 (just submitted). Cheers, Michael > On 17 Sep 2018, at 21:30, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > That SGTM > > -Ekr > > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >> >> >> > S 7.2. >> >> >

Re: [Taps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, There's only one remaining item to address, so I'm cutting away the others: >>> In Section A.3.6, "Data encryption" and "source authenticity" are absent >>> from the list of "security related transport features" (that are relegated >>> to the other document); this seems like a fatal

Re: [Taps] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Alissa, As an author of the minset draft, I'd like to share our own views on your comments below. These reflect both what we authors think, but also what several others seem to think - so in a way, this email also summarizes views from emails written by Mirja, Theresa Enghardt (doc

Re: [Taps] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with COMMENT)

> > >> > S 7.2. > >> > > >> > o Disable MPTCP > >> >Protocols: MPTCP > >> >Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to > >> >the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the > >> >application. > >> > > >> > I don't

[Taps] TCP connection grouping

Hi, Ekr asked for it, but I think this could be of interest to more in TAPS, even though it's nothing that today's protocols can do: Ekr's question was "how do you group TCP connections?". Safiqul and I worked on this - with lightweight code that combines the congestion controls of multiple

Re: [Taps] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 13 Sep 2018, at 20:24, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > Hi, > > >> > COMMENTS >> > S 1. >> > of libraries to use this transport feature without exposing it,

Re: [Taps] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Benjamin, Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers below: > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: Discuss > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT

Re: [Taps] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-minset-08: (with COMMENT)

Dear Mirja, Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers below: > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >

[Taps] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps-minset-09.txt

... Cheers, Michael > Begin forwarded message: > > From: > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps-minset-09.txt > Date: 13 September 2018 at 16:28:40 CEST > To: Michael Welzl , Stein Gjessing > Resent-From: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf

Re: [Taps] Transport Services (taps) WG Virtual Meeting: 2018-09-12

ial Send/Receive, Tommy > 2. 0-RTT, Brian (to be confirmed) > 3. Connection & Message Properties, Michael Welzl > 4. draft-pauly-quic-interface-00.txt, Tommy > 5. Implementation & testing, Chair > > > > > > > On 2018-09-11, 07:21, "Michael Wel

Re: [Taps] Transport Services (taps) WG Virtual Meeting: 2018-09-12

0-RTT, Brian (to be confirmed) > 3. Connection & Message Properties, ??? > 4. draft-pauly-quic-interface-00.txt, Tommy > 5. Implementation & testing, (Zahed, can you lead this?) > > On 10 Sep 2018, at 16:07, Michael Welzl wrote: > > +1 on these suggestions > > S

Re: [Taps] To registry, or not to registry?

Hi all, I like the idea too, but I also wonder: does this give us a risk that the whole system could become super-flexible, obscure and non-implementable at some point? But maybe that’s easily solved, by stating that only the transport properties in RFCs are required to implement, and

Re: [Taps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-06

Hi Spencer, See below: > On Aug 31, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > Thanks, Robert, for the careful read, and thanks, Michael, for the quick > response. I have one thought, on Robert's last question. > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:37 AM Michae

Re: [Taps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-06

Hi, Thank you very much for this careful review! We just posted a revision ( -07 ) that, we believe, addresses these comments. A few answers in line below: > On 28 Aug 2018, at 23:38, Robert Sparks wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned

Re: [Taps] Small suggestion (I hope it's a NIT) for the introduction

Hi, I confirm that it’s a nit, and I’ll fix it. Cheers, Michael > On Aug 27, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > > I drew the genart review for the minset document. It made me go skim most the > taps docs. I spotted a small thing that I think you meant, but do not > currently say. >

Re: [Taps] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-taps-minset-04

> On 22 Aug 2018, at 15:20, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > Hi, Michael, > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:49 AM Michael Welzl wrote: > Hi, > > > > On 21 Aug 2018, at 22:27, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > > wrote: > > > > Hi, Aaron, >

Re: [Taps] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-taps-minset-04

Hi, > On 21 Aug 2018, at 22:27, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > Hi, Aaron, > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:44 PM Aaron Falk wrote: > Glad to see rapid convergence on these comments. My turn for a nit: > > On 21 Aug 2018, at 2:48, Michael Welzl wrote: >

Re: [Taps] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-taps-minset-04

Hi, In line below: > On 20 Aug 2018, at 17:34, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > Hi, Michael, > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:11 AM Michael Welzl wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks again ! > > > > On 20 Aug 2018, at 15:52, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > >

Re: [Taps] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-taps-minset-04

Hi, Thanks again ! > On 20 Aug 2018, at 15:52, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > Hi, Michael, > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:57 AM Michael Welzl wrote: > Hi Spencer! > > Thank you so much for your detailed work and all these comments! > I'm commenting

Re: [Taps] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-taps-minset-04

Hi Spencer! Thank you so much for your detailed work and all these comments! I'm commenting in line below, and marking my comments with "MW:". I'm terminating my responses with a "--". I'm attaching an update which incorporates the changes described in this email, but I'm delaying its

Re: [Taps] working group last call for draft-ietf-taps-minset

yes, ready! :) Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Jul 2018, at 20:39, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Authors- > > I think I dropped the ball on this draft. Is it ready to go to Spencer for AD > review or is there a rev needed? > > --aaron > > On 5 Jun 2018, at 11:12, Aaron Falk wrote: > > WGLC for this

Re: [Taps] New Transport Networking APIs in iOS 12 beta

> On Jun 15, 2018, at 6:37 PM, John Grant wrote: > > On 15/06/2018 17:17, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > [snip] >> >> Adding back pressure to inbound connections is something that we do need to >> add. The approach Michael suggests, of just ignoring an inbound connection >> until we’re ready to

Re: [Taps] New Transport Networking APIs in iOS 12 beta

Hi, Thanks for sharing this! It’s quite interesting - > On Jun 11, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote: > > I’ve read over Apple’s new API. (One note: the URL that Tommy sent a link to > doesn’t have the full documentation of the API yet; many of the types and > methods still say “No

Re: [Taps] New Transport Networking APIs in iOS 12 beta

Hi, This - in particular your answer to Michael - is indeed extremely cool! Thanks to you and your colleagues at Apple for pursuing this direction, and thanks for sharing it with the group! About this statement in the original email: *** Either way, we’d love for everyone to take a read

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-minset-04.txt

: A Minimal Set of Transport Services for End Systems > Authors : Michael Welzl > Stein Gjessing > Filename: draft-ietf-taps-minset-04.txt > Pages : 46 > Date: 2018-06-05 > > Abstract: >

Re: [Taps] Minset WGLC Review

Hi, Thanks a lot for your comments! > On May 31, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Hello TAPS, > > I’ve just done a read through of the current minset draft. Overall, looks > good! I have a few nits, but these can all be addressed in the next revision: > > - The first sentence of

Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-01

Hi, > On May 22, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Christopher Wood > wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Many thanks for reading the document and taking time to provide comments! > They are greatly appreciated. I've filed #33 ( Gee, thanks to you for this friendly response after

Re: [Taps] working group last call for draft-ietf-taps-minset

Hi, Thanks a lot for reading and for your feedback! Answers in line: > On May 17, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Theresa Enghardt > wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have read the draft, including the appendix, and I think it is in good > shape and can be published. > > However, I

Re: [Taps] working group last call for draft-ietf-taps-minset

Dear Mikael, Thanks a lot for reading, and thanks for your feedback! Answers in line: > On May 11, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Thu, 10 May 2018, Aaron Falk wrote: > >> Please read the draft and send comments to the list. This document is >> planned

  1   2   3   >