> On 22 Oct 2015, at 10:32, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > >> On 19. okt. 2015, at 20.44, Aaron Falk <aaron.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Folks- >> >> So, we have these two docs and a rough agreement that they are >> complimentary. Gorry suggests that they both progress as responsive to >> milestone 1: >> >>> I suggest the two docs against the first milestone will help us >>> make progress towards the next milestone faster. (Assuming we can keep >>> the two aligned, which seems quite doable). I can see also how the docs >>> are useful to different people. I'd like to see both mature and provide >>> inputs to move forward. >> >> Is there agreement on this? I’ve heard no objections. Assuming so, we >> should move on. >> >> First, I would ask that the authors summarize the work remaining on each doc >> to the list and call out any topics requiring discussion at the Yokohama >> meeting. > > draft-welzl-taps-transports currently only covers TCP and SCTP. But then: how > many other protocols? > It seems people agree that the protocols covered in > draft-welzl-taps-transports should be a subset of the protocols covered in > draft-ietf-taps-transports. My question is, then: how to choose the subset? > > It seems obvious to include protocols that are seeing some deployment, i.e. > of course UDP, maybe UDP-Lite (?), but also MPTCP… > However: if that is the only decision ground, we probably wouldn’t include > DCCP. Are we then making a significant mistake, missing a lesson to be > learned? > > That, to me, is a discussion I’d like to have in Yokohama.
+1, and FWIW that's exactly the same starting point I got to on my own. >> Second, let’s hear some proposals for addressing the second milestone. >> >> 2) Specify the subset of those Transport Services, as identified >> in item 1, that end systems supporting TAPS will provide, and >> give guidance on choosing among available mechanisms and >> protocols. Note that not all the capabilities of IETF Transport >> protocols need to be exposed as Transport Services. >> > > It may not be much, but fwiw, draft-gjessing-taps-minset exists. It contains > some ideas on how services could be narrowed down, and these could be applied > to draft-welzl-taps-transports just as well as to draft-ietf-taps-transports > (which it’s currently written around). There's probably quibbling to be done about the details, but I believe draft-gjessing is a good starting point for charter item 2. Cheers, Brian > Cheers, > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
