From nobody Tue Sep 6 13:32:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CC812B41E; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKoRlEYb0KsJ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 450F612B069; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.57.161.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u86KWTOr040894 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:32:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.57.161.14] claimed to be unnumerable.local To: General Area Review Team , taps@ietf.org, draft-ietf-taps-transports.all@ietf.org From: Robert Sparks Message-ID: <2622b864-acce-d442-ab1a-4cc5808868d3@nostrum.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:32:29 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------893A42B8BAB091DBBDDD93B4" Archived-At: Subject: [Taps] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-taps-transports-11 X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 20:32:35 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------893A42B8BAB091DBBDDD93B4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-ietf-taps-transports-11 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 6 Sep 2016 IETF LC End Date: 9 Sep 2016 IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled Summary: Ready (with very small nits) for publication as an Informational RFC Please consider a light touch to the Introduction and perhaps the Abstract making the point of this survey explicit. I can figure it out from reading the TAPS charter - I shouldn't have to go that far. The Abstract touches (too) briefly on this being background for determining a common set of transport services, but the message is lost in the roll-call of protocols that dominate the text. I don't think listing the surveyed protocols in the abstract is going to help anyone in the future - consider leaving the list for the body of the text. Please also make it more clear that this is _only_ background for input into the next task of converging on a common core set of transport services. It would be a disservice to the community if someone in the future could argue "That service wasn't identified in draft-ietf-taps-transport so it's out of scope for anything the working group should be targeting". It looks like a lot went into this survey to try to make sure it provided a comprehensive overview of existing services, but I don't think that it's intent was to provide the definitive, exhaustive, list. Should 3.7 acknowledge the state of work on TLS 1.3? I find a list of things that have RTP and ICMP as peers to be unsettling. I don't think it's worth the delay to ask the group to rationalize what's in the list and what isn't, or to restructure the psuedo-transports and the helpfully-related-protocol into different sections (questions like "why didn't you give FECFRAME its own section?" aren't going to help with the work this is supposed to inform). Perhaps the touch to the abstract and introduction requested above can say something like "The protocols listed here were chosen to help expose as many potential transport services as possible, and are not meant to be a comprehensive survey or classification of all transport protocols." With that thought, I challenge "classifies" in the Abstract - I think the document would serve just as well (and maybe avoid introducing controversy) if it doesn't claim to classify things. I'm not finding the tables in Section 5 illuminating and they're potentially distracting and may not be right (why isn't reliability for RTP "Poss" for example?). Please consider just removing the tables. Nits: The last paragraph of 3.3.1 was particularly hard to parse. Searching the existing RFCs for "back-up" I don't find it used the way this document uses it. Should it use "back-off" instead? --------------893A42B8BAB091DBBDDD93B4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-taps-transports-11
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 6 Sep 2016
IETF LC End Date: 9 Sep 2016
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready (with very small nits) for publication as an Informational RFC

Please consider a light touch to the Introduction and perhaps the Abstract making the point of this survey explicit. I can figure it out from reading the TAPS charter - I shouldn't have to go that far. The Abstract touches (too) briefly on this being background for determining a common set of transport services, but the message is lost in the roll-call of protocols that dominate the text. I don't think listing the surveyed protocols in the abstract is going to help anyone in the future - consider leaving the list for the body of the text.

Please also make it more clear that this is _only_ background for input into the next task of converging on a common core set of transport services. It would be a disservice to the community if someone in the future could argue "That service wasn't identified in draft-ietf-taps-transport so it's out of scope for anything the working group should be targeting". It looks like a lot went into this survey to try to make sure it provided a comprehensive overview of existing services, but I don't think that it's intent was to provide the definitive, exhaustive, list.

Should 3.7 acknowledge the state of work on TLS 1.3?

I find a list of things that have RTP and ICMP as peers to be unsettling.  I don't think it's worth the delay to ask the group to rationalize what's in the list and what isn't, or to restructure the psuedo-transports and the helpfully-related-protocol into different sections (questions like "why didn't you give FECFRAME its own section?" aren't going to help with the work this is supposed to inform). Perhaps the touch to the abstract and introduction requested above can say something like "The protocols listed here were chosen to help expose as many potential transport services as possible, and are not meant to be a comprehensive survey or classification of all transport protocols." With that thought, I challenge "classifies" in the Abstract - I think the document would serve just as well (and maybe avoid introducing controversy) if it doesn't claim to classify things.

I'm not finding the tables in Section 5 illuminating and they're potentially distracting and may not be right (why isn't reliability for RTP "Poss"  for example?). Please consider just removing the tables.

Nits:

The last paragraph of 3.3.1 was particularly hard to parse.

Searching the existing RFCs for "back-up" I don't find it used the way this document uses it. Should it use "back-off" instead?


--------------893A42B8BAB091DBBDDD93B4-- From nobody Mon Sep 19 12:04:18 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22E112B4F6 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:04:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id faMtC72MuxVe for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0575912B4ED for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id t7so156598016qkh.2 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version; bh=sagjiySWxYutZzl64hE6w/j1A/oYIZmnM8Nss/UdTaE=; b=K621AB60MH2iN0gWNNoyz85vJCaURYquAA7JLrfuccYI7ZWVRbkaLm/MFul7+gLdYX lreNH/a11C2KTwi57WTe8oRbcwnBQ0cuR8SMaLHHh0OyV3J843WINxu5rGC8Q+Focp3j FJFfpUyCp+eY3S07FZHH1QxlOR9cmH0A4oVTWihjdL1f0wwZ2NWNZJwT0sCTqLDrHNFN UkTXUs0AKZm4+8oDQMZPZcBuwMuxS1IuKCzu2CUANvF3BE8Xt0rt2YTwreDw+ATm9WC+ E8nXX7Zp5Hi8MMbH+6T1lDg6tSWBMDSQ57MG74JGbUfXQiWCs+tOgxBdNNr7sekkdXod /7pg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=sagjiySWxYutZzl64hE6w/j1A/oYIZmnM8Nss/UdTaE=; b=BJ4yd5kzbc32DEcWik61NgWlvgRk6+U+BDP98WZAI8ba902laJpIKw4vIXmcQFHILO e8v9DufvUdmN4+eNREW/MlAE9Aqv6GsJrsA6+8xmhuX9W6RyGEpTE6iCKEo6tgKoAH1G 9aomkDtJlZnNMr4e7xKAK1XA/xSZSEkANwH5NS3OQ84W0MPbaiT/Ny/OI7sCNhR9Gqao ZqDzlnYCSjd5i4XTVp3ThiCrBRGdgaZEw0V/xJxdbsm/JRVGPLLmGkfz4/oAo+fNm9tN ilLAWV9QxdyIJ4ROlL2993nF6LPsNMguLUYL1aXoeAAwW91/jVnnrxbzGTbfYBDUUaIz 5+tA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOOsJMig+6QJ4Ec38PI6lZ3XcgnIJfmdkwvgav/MHCjQNEcWt5v+RCebj2TqGHrNg== X-Received: by 10.55.108.194 with SMTP id h185mr30549358qkc.37.1474311853894; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bos-mpy2z.kendall.corp.akamai.com ([72.246.0.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v68sm13809941qkd.24.2016.09.19.12.04.13 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Aaron Falk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:04:12 -0400 Message-Id: <04BC7390-051B-4D81-94C7-858A1880BAA7@gmail.com> To: taps@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: Zaheduzzaman Sarker Subject: [Taps] TAPS agenda proposals X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:04:17 -0000 It=E2=80=99s time to start planning for the next IETF meeting. Please = send agenda proposals to the wg list. =E2=80=94aaron= From nobody Tue Sep 20 14:54:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B6712B53C for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V9hEOgYMIS52 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 334E312B14D for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1bmT04-0003Go-FH for taps@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:54:48 +0200 Received: from 234.133.189.109.customer.cdi.no ([109.189.133.234] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1bmT04-0004V7-1e for taps@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:54:48 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Michael Welzl In-Reply-To: <9ED15E64-E134-4139-817D-49FA02F2920D@ifi.uio.no> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:54:47 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <04BC7390-051B-4D81-94C7-858A1880BAA7@gmail.com> <9ED15E64-E134-4139-817D-49FA02F2920D@ifi.uio.no> To: "taps@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 2 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 3 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 46538 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0 X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: 5C2A0394A249751E5E486B72D42242AA8F3376FA X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 109.189.133.234 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 158 max/h 9 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Taps] TAPS agenda proposals X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:54:53 -0000 Forwarding, as Aaron asked for these requests to be sent to the list. Similarly, we=E2=80=99ll also update draft-gjessing-taps-minset (just to = follow along with the update of the other draft mentioned below) and = would like to request a slot for it. Can be short as this document is = generally shorter / simpler. Cheers, Michael > On 20. sep. 2016, at 23.41, Naeem Khademi wrote: >=20 > Hi=20 >=20 > We=E2=80=99ll definitely have an update on = draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage (before the cut-off date) which we=E2=80=99= ll present in Seoul, so please allocate a time-slot for that if = possible. The length of the presentation is undecided as of now, and = depends on the update itself, but for now assume 10 min by default.=20 >=20 > Cheers, > Naeem >=20 >> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:04 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: >>=20 >> It=E2=80=99s time to start planning for the next IETF meeting. = Please send agenda proposals to the wg list. >>=20 >> =E2=80=94aaron >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> Taps@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps >=20 From nobody Wed Sep 21 05:58:15 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF87B12B2EC for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:58:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lTTRe7F59KIo for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A40C12B2B6 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w204so43800030qka.0 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:56:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xzrsTd41X9ro9yp7GXLS8AxUE2DVEiMrt9GpgCsK2VI=; b=D4j5KIGoXxEJZqUbA3nxdpdYuHc/fPoXBKgBA0ZpAkYbc/xGCyEeJNuFTlKXzNZjFS cadSA1oNd7emFSI+K4y36VUFZ9h5VEGOPo6+pKH38/SGovbfU434UgemlFhT2xLDeg3T lwWTG1LA1hm2v6cuPT5vBvtpcTajccuoFwuq1KACyT/J7FzQGo9Xz0tjMTtq21wVPGEx huGdEUyK1fE3na2qiC6KT4OdqhUwxeEsN3HtW8QgU7mgs0DiCK0OUduf7k2wVTDzT9XS gIDNrn3crEmKp8fs3Jg6dhgU+NKehuAmzieVXTIpMkSdBV+9lzA9eBffT4GsuhR8NlE2 Sm7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xzrsTd41X9ro9yp7GXLS8AxUE2DVEiMrt9GpgCsK2VI=; b=it14iR2Uu91LqnvYZ02OFIP6fwneH77ZlchGzGk3kwUW7gCizZeknqRMDNryq8XdYI yh1KIIOhxuniK4VU9pSEDmJAZMXC0zRIYCf82VDVbVwAfx50+W7CCTUVZ+ousQiSXT4I Vug7WejhbPmgEXtgSWdiGfppwkiJFBaD/+S3TAZdXqVj5U13+oeNmGG94aj9QeCDdC5Y 747LzkIEedQbTp+9ooAXUxuVvpxa5RXhzZwY3S/9eEVVsfft30nK4Y/CzEP1PAH6+iMh /l5ByAA/NczZj046veI3GvALC1w0kB4iNUFPY3wYiy2j+b5GEmtTY63Pv2ogwJ9kbLRV 8Zzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwP5+0jVrLpaj0NgBAlwTERmuwdWRe+vXDmXSg+Pwh4O1eMy83tzGl0qgSrDVRupfQ== X-Received: by 10.55.89.195 with SMTP id n186mr41455302qkb.275.1474462612540; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:184:4200:ddcd:a94f:4cdd:4a94:147a? ([2601:184:4200:ddcd:a94f:4cdd:4a94:147a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g63sm18788866qkf.47.2016.09.21.05.56.51 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Aaron Falk In-Reply-To: <04BC7390-051B-4D81-94C7-858A1880BAA7@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:56:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4798CA21-43E6-4285-9A3F-032B285F25A7@gmail.com> References: <04BC7390-051B-4D81-94C7-858A1880BAA7@gmail.com> To: taps@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: Zaheduzzaman Sarker Subject: Re: [Taps] TAPS agenda proposals X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:58:14 -0000 We heard about several implementation projects in Berlin. Have any of = these projects made progress worth discussing? =20 =E2=80=94aaron > On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: >=20 > It=E2=80=99s time to start planning for the next IETF meeting. Please = send agenda proposals to the wg list. >=20 > =E2=80=94aaron From nobody Thu Sep 29 08:51:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0691D12B1B4 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U17ZgPJUsTcN for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B3312B1BA for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 30so13639202qth.2 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=fcsmAq3CfgXajqQklpCaUHGRHaXKpMUY5NnIw+Qq2qE=; b=mzMVfc775tsje8JBS3+8/QsGzZ3Wa+lVV/fqEKx6JktSZpnIclMX8LR0SAoC8QYYJo MvSVwc4PEMjGX8Oq9YpbmWuUs3bdhqcNk8vAI/nRYPL+TxAl79oki379+ntVl8vvrX02 l6ZQA0IkTnkgjPx1zWDgz+NsDi30DQwPH1diDnbyikNxUpcbtMj1a9piyy7chjg/Ub92 82a7LA+4ldX1PmiHOatbLZriYpNhKDfnmG6wGgvBES8+Q8Vj8yQM67LHIj0AeaOPv4mX W9HVOX7aA47E0dCHzcZF2rzhA82BzdKvnOE4TVOTQlSz9101ogF0Tf+7Pyw1XgqaxMLW VEqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=fcsmAq3CfgXajqQklpCaUHGRHaXKpMUY5NnIw+Qq2qE=; b=iYpNsDfeBPjEl6r3GJ1Drh76PemUatD/3CngungG9i3VqWdtpEK4c0GbyK2QW1cOoX TH/9l5BNWjVK7Ifd8Rwu4H2TuABf+4RVmMOQxk5mrXmxGKSiRLv6vl5igwEPm6OL3N6v /kqpz1OoGGaorBZ4a4FiTNrWyaMPN8Y/ywswEuwNyRonL0MqMw7t3SeuxO+953nfr+OJ zKMl7dcAgMPQNPXOCJtclrJ2Gji3qLlykkCFhRobtmh0IfsZ+msU555LDLgFQccTYqX0 GJJyrvgCNCNkCg5KCaU/lWRCVQxHdub/MYtv7Q9tEU8teHRUcHevJbGu/czy1uKiKmbw AJEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rk0Vyth6IrhoIhQ6bu7/U6OocTacT+7NoAMNc0wjbICf6F1icBDqG6FamR9jppPqw== X-Received: by 10.200.47.157 with SMTP id l29mr2261932qta.78.1475164255888; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4878:8000:60:d142:7282:de07:4a53? ([2001:4878:8000:60:d142:7282:de07:4a53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s33sm7006810qta.41.2016.09.29.08.50.55 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Aaron Falk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_81B40042-8EA8-444B-8D09-CAE0122DC71D" Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:50:55 -0400 Message-Id: To: taps@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: Zaheduzzaman Sarker Subject: [Taps] agenda topics X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:51:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_81B40042-8EA8-444B-8D09-CAE0122DC71D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 FYI, here are some topics proposed for TAPS meeting. I think this is = sufficient to request a slot. Proposals for other topics, particularly = around implementation experience, are still welcome. Post-Sockets Update - Brian Trammel =E2=80=9CDesign and approaches we think are useful in real-world APIs at = the transport layer=E2=80=9D - Tommy Pauly, Apple TAPS-related topics from the NEAT project - Michael, Naeem, Anna, or = Gorry, NEAT Update of draft-gjessing-taps-minset, Michael Welzl Update on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage, Naeem Khademi= --Apple-Mail=_81B40042-8EA8-444B-8D09-CAE0122DC71D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 FYI, here are some topics proposed for TAPS meeting.  I = think this is sufficient to request a slot.  Proposals for other = topics, particularly around implementation experience, are still = welcome.

  1. Post-Sockets Update - Brian Trammel
  2. =E2=80=9CDesign and approaches we think are useful in = real-world APIs at the transport layer=E2=80=9D - Tommy Pauly, = Apple
  3. TAPS-related topics from the NEAT project - = Michael, Naeem, Anna, or Gorry, NEAT
  4. Update of = draft-gjessing-taps-minset, Michael Welzl
  5. Update on = draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage, Naeem = Khademi
= --Apple-Mail=_81B40042-8EA8-444B-8D09-CAE0122DC71D-- From nobody Thu Sep 29 08:54:55 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: taps@ietf.org Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0363312B1A0; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147516449397.18467.17238019809403701733.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:54:53 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: falk-ietf@dgftech.com, taps-chairs@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, taps@ietf.org Subject: [Taps] taps - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 97 X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:54:54 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Aaron Falk, a Chair of the taps working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Transport Services Area Name: Transport Area Session Requester: Aaron Falk Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 80 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: apparea appsawg tsvarea aqm rmcat ippm tsvwg iccrg tcpm dispatch maprg Second Priority: webpush tcpinc nvo3 mptcp icnrg httpbis irtfopen Third Priority: mmusic tram Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Sep 29 11:56:54 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: taps@ietf.org Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BDF12B129; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:56:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147517541374.18523.17683585013253883436.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:56:53 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: falk-ietf@dgftech.com, taps-chairs@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, taps@ietf.org Subject: [Taps] taps - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 97 X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:56:54 -0000 An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Aaron Falk, a Chair of the taps working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Transport Services Area Name: Transport Area Session Requester: Aaron Falk Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 80 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: apparea appsawg tsvarea aqm rmcat ippm tsvwg iccrg tcpm dispatch maprg quic Second Priority: webpush tcpinc nvo3 mptcp icnrg httpbis irtfopen Third Priority: mmusic tram Special Requests: ---------------------------------------------------------