Hi, Sorry for the long silence. I have been on vacation with almost no internet connection. I will attend IETF 94, but I don´t feel ready to lead a discussion about charter item 2. However, I will take part in the discussion and gladly contribute to the draft we eventually have to make to fulfill the charter, possibly by revising draft-gjessing-taps-minset.
Stein On 22 Oct 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? > > > > 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. > > > > Stein, will you be in Yokohama and interested in leading a discussion on this > draft? > > --aaron
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
