+1 to having the interim. I think we could indeed get some short mapping documents done in less time than we spent on the core docs… if for nothing else, having a document that shows a message-based protocol on top of a stream without a custom framer would be useful.
Tommy > On Mar 15, 2023, at 2:07 PM, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 15/03/2023 20:52, Michael Welzl wrote: >> 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 >> implementation experience……. ahem… >> 3) like 2), but s/http/quic >> >> If the WG closes, where else could 2) and 3) happen? Does this relate to >> item 1) somehow? >> >> If everyone just shrugs their shoulders to all of these questions (as I do), >> I guess this could be a short interim followed by closing the group. Just my >> 2 cents. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael > > I think we previously said we could fo 2,3 after we had the base drafts > published - I expect that is going to be soon, and I think once that is done > we ought to have that interim and talk about this! > > Gorry > >> >>>> On Mar 15, 2023, at 4:35 PM, Reese Enghardt <i...@tenghardt.net> wrote: >>> >>> Dear TAPS, >>> >>> As we are moving towards finishing the three core documents, the next step >>> will be to recharter or conclude. >>> >>> We have talked about possible further milestones related to mapping >>> documents, and we have a few related issues on the Github >>> (https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Amappings). >>> >>> However, we have not seen much activity on this topic since IETF 113, and >>> we have no related currently active documents. >>> >>> I wanted to give you a heads-up that, given this state, the chairs are >>> wondering if it'll be time to conclude TAPS once the core documents have >>> made their way to the RFC Editor, unless we see evidence of substantial >>> interest and activity regarding further milestones. >>> >>> Nothing has been decided yet, and we will be happy to discuss this question. >>> >>> TAPS is not meeting at IETF 116, but we can consider scheduling a virtual >>> interim meeting or a WG meeting at IETF 117 if we have content for a >>> fruitful discussion. >>> >>> Please let me know your thoughts. >>> >>> Best, >>> Reese >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
