hi Michael, > On 22 Oct 2015, at 18:19, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > >> On 22. okt. 2015, at 16.14, Aaron Falk <aaron.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Any volunteers to kick off the lead the discussion? > > Let me try to roll this some more on the list, because I gave it some thought: > > The goal is to have something buildable. So if we allow protocols that are > hardly deployed into draft-welzl-taps-transports, then this gives us a list > that may include services that one can never implement unless hardly-deployed > protocol X is used, or other protocols are extended to all of a sudden > provide this functionality. > > Thus, boring as it may seem, “widely deployed protocols” can be the only > reasonable criterion to allow adding protocols in draft-welzl-taps-transports
s/widely deployed/widely implemented/g, but yes. Another thought: draft-gjessing (as it currently is) looks at the minimal set of services. If there are services we believe are useful to support that are not presently widely implemented or deployed, we can certainly add them as optional, no? The only services that could not be handled in such a way would be those that have an impact on the API other than just adding knobs and meters, no? Cheers, Brian > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
