> On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) <i...@trammell.ch> wrote: > > hi Aaron, > >> On 29 Jun 2017, at 17:36, Aaron Falk <aaron.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Updating. Our agenda time is much more productive if we can home in on >> specific questions to discuss rather than just give document overviews. >> Authors & other folk: what’s interesting, unclear, or controversial here? > > I think it's time to level up and have a discussion about "policy" and how it > relates to TAPS. > > I'm going to leave the definition of "policy" here deliberately vague with > the hope that we can start to build some terminology around it at the meeting.
+1 to having a general discussion on the topic of policy (both application-specified and system-specified), likely following onto the presentation of intents. Getting a formal set of definitions would really help moving forward in our discussions. > >> >> • draft-gjessing-taps-minset-05.txt >> >> • There’s been some interesting discussion on the draft. Are >> there any specific topics we should set aside time to discuss? >> • Socket Intents, Philipp >> >> • Again, what specific topics should we discuss? >> • We’ve been told to expect 3 drafts: on general concepts, BSD >> implementation, & communication granularity. What’s worth discussing? > > Given the focus of the socket intents and granularity work, I think starting > the policy discussion here makes sense. > >> • Michio Honda HotNets paper “PASTE: Network Stacks Must Integrate with >> NVMM Abstractions” >> >> • “These days I'm working on networking interface for >> non-volatile main memory (a.k.a. persistent memory and storage-class >> memory), because with such devices networking stack/API becomes a bottleneck >> in the end-to-end communication that involves persistent media (disk or SSDs >> for now). I saw some post-socket discussion in the minutes of the last >> meeting, so I wonder if this type of work could give some useful information >> to IETFers who design new transport API standards.” >> • Is there interest in this topic? AFAIK, there’s no Internet >> Draft. I will inquire whether Michio intends to submit one. > > IMO this is very interesting stuff. Might be better as a tsvarea presentation? > > Cheers, > > Brian > >> • Transport Security Protocol Survey, Tommy Since the security part of the protocols is a bit new in TAPS, we’ll probably want to give a bit of document overview, but I think the interesting discussion points here are in: - The common features/interface presented by various security protocols - The ability to separate security handshakes from data encryption Thanks, Tommy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
