Re: [Taps] Another significant detail: status of RFCs

On 19. aug. 2014, at 12:07, Brian Trammell wrote: hi Michael, On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:35, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: Hi again, all, Did you notice that the two still existing milestones that we still have left also come with a status now? Before the London BOF, this bit

Re: [Taps] TAPS charter rev 20140818

+1. Now, we can perhaps head on to the other charter changes related to this re-inserted milestone. I suggest the following undo's = I mean going back from THIS VERSION to the PREVIOUS VERSION, which is the version that went to IETF review: THIS VERSION: 2) Note that not all capabilities of

Re: [Taps] agenda topic: application - transport abstractions

On 05 Feb 2015, at 09:54, Marie-Jose Montpetit mari...@mit.edu wrote: On Feb 5, 2015, at 3:44 AM, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: On 05 Feb 2015, at 00:29, Marie-Jose Montpetit mari...@mit.edu wrote: snip/snip In summary, we need a better way to describe the services

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-01.txt

On 1. feb. 2015, at 08.51, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: Would it make sense to include statements about latency? I think if we come to think about the API that could be presented by TAPS to the application, we'll need to focus on what characteristics the Apps expect from the network. Low

Re: [Taps] A proposal to throw out RTP

(or functionalities) which are no longer available. I think that this list of services is too short and must be extended to add more services, especially those already offered, like data encryption for example, or message-oriented transmission ... On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Michael Welzl

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt

On 5. jun. 2015, at 10.12, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch wrote: Okay, just to quickly clarify. In the charter only the word service is used. We defined later on the words component and feature which are currently not reflected in the charter. The part I've cited below,

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt

Sorry for sending an extra email - I just had an extra thought and think this is important to add: Below: On 5. jun. 2015, at 11.05, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: On 5. jun. 2015, at 10.12, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch wrote: Okay, just to quickly clarify

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt

On 05 Jun 2015, at 15:52, Michael Tuexen michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote: On 05 Jun 2015, at 15:39, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: On 05 Jun 2015, at 12:35, Michael Tuexen michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote: On 05 Jun 2015, at 11:05, Michael Welzl mich

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt

On 5. jun. 2015, at 19.52, Michael Tuexen michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote: On 05 Jun 2015, at 16:03, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: On 05 Jun 2015, at 15:52, Michael Tuexen michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de wrote: On 05 Jun 2015, at 15:39, Michael Welzl mich

[Taps] A proposal to throw out RTP

Hi, I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I understand that it's a non-obvious question whether RTP should be considered

Re: [Taps] A proposal to throw out RTP

i'm fine with all that... Sent from my iPhone On 3. juni 2015, at 17:58, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch wrote: Hi all, On 03.06.2015 17:04, Brian Trammell wrote: On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: Hi, I know this has been discussed before,

Re: [Taps] A proposal to throw out RTP

Well... it's a typical engineering trade-off decision to make... On 04 Jun 2015, at 07:45, Marie-Jose Montpetit mari...@mit.edu wrote: In my presentation in Dallas I had suggested adding RTP (and even HTTP) because as both Mirja and Christian mention some 'applications' are requesting

Re: [Taps] TCP components

misunderstood me. I was talking about RFCs (btw 6458, not 4960), not implementations out there. More below, answering Joe (hm, that rhymes ;-) ) - Mirja Am 17.06.2015 um 20:10 schrieb Joe Touch to...@isi.edu: On 6/17/2015 1:44 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: I think

Re: [Taps] TCP components

On 17 Jun 2015, at 12:13, Brian Trammell i...@trammell.ch wrote: hi Michael, all, A couple of random points inline at various levels of quotation... On 17 Jun 2015, at 10:44, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: On Jun 17, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew

[Taps] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00.txt

: From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00.txt Date: 22 Jun 2015 14:37:43 CEST To: Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no, Stein Gjessing ste...@ifi.uio.no, Stein Gjessing ste...@ifi.uio.no, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no Resent-From: mich

Re: [Taps] TCP components

On 18. jun. 2015, at 15.56, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch wrote: Hi Michael, Am 18.06.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no: On 18 Jun 2015, at 10:48, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch wrote: Hi Joe, I believe the approach

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt

, Michael Welzl wrote: here is where the confusion comes from: this doc is not about APIs, it’s about transport services, or to say it even more concrete, transport services components and features. Such services are either inherent to the transport (e.g., in-order, reliable delivery) or exposed

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt

About one bit in particular: That’s to bad. Maybe we should state this more explicitly in the intro…? According to our charter, while taps itself is chartered to describe an (abstract) interface for applications to make use of Transport Services“, this first document is only used to

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-04.txt

On 1. jun. 2015, at 23.17, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: On 6/1/2015 12:23 PM, Michael Welzl wrote: I'll try addressing another detail, maybe that helps get us aligned: On 1. jun. 2015, at 21.38, Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch wrote: Hi Joe My concern

Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00.txt

On 16. jul. 2015, at 15.04, Brian Trammell i...@trammell.ch wrote: hi Michael, ...inline... On 16 Jul 2015, at 13:23, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: snip Ideally, I think, then one would use a common term for Nagle(-like) bundling for TCP and SCTP. Agreed, we actually

Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00.txt

Ideally, I think, then one would use a common term for Nagle(-like) bundling for TCP and SCTP. Agreed, we actually did that in Michael Welzl, Stefan Jörer, Stein Gjessing: Towards a Protocol-Independent Internet Transport API, FutureNet IV workshop in conjunction with of IEEE ICC 2011, 5-9

Re: [Taps] TCP components

To: Joe Touch Cc: Brian Trammell; Michael Welzl; taps@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Taps] TCP components Hi Joe, I believe the approach Michael is proposing is to look at existing APIs as a starting point; not only abstract APIs. The assumption is that someone who implemented/designed an API

Re: [Taps] TCP components

On 15 Jul 2015, at 12:40, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen karen.niel...@tieto.com wrote: Hi Michael, All I have been pointing at RFC6458 but was recently told (and I should have just read the thing instead of being told, sorry :-() that this RFC does not specify how SCTP's

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

> On 19. okt. 2015, at 20.44, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Hi Folks- > > So, we have these two docs and a rough agreement that they are complimentary. > Gorry suggests that they both progress as responsive to milestone 1: > >> I suggest the two docs against the first

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

> On 19. okt. 2015, at 20.44, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Hi Folks- > > So, we have these two docs and a rough agreement that they are complimentary. > Gorry suggests that they both progress as responsive to milestone 1: > >> I suggest the two docs against the first

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

> On 27. okt. 2015, at 10.44, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen > wrote: > > HI, > > Just a note. Not necessarily relevant for the overall argument however. > >>> >>> So we’re i) describing services; ii) narrowing them down somehow; iii) >>> describing how to build this

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

isabled in UDP now, for simplicity) > Further see below. > >> Am 27.10.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no>: >> >> >>> On 27. okt. 2015, at 15.00, Mirja Kühlewind >>> <mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: >>>

Re: [Taps] adopting draft-welzl-taps-transports

So I did say this before, but to get the ball rolling: > On 28. okt. 2015, at 15.10, Aaron Falk wrote: > > I've not heard any objections to work on this document and several proposals > for why it would help docs 2 & 3 (as well as the implementations based on 3). > >

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

> On 26. okt. 2015, at 14.17, Aaron Falk wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Gorry Fairhurst > wrote: > On 22/10/2015 15:14, Aaron Falk wrote: > > > draft-welzl-taps-transports currently only covers TCP and

Re: [Taps] IETF planning

> On 22. okt. 2015, at 22.23, Brian Trammell <i...@trammell.ch> wrote: > > 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> wr

[Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

Dear all, Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even remotely. I just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the question of RFC 6458 - "why is the SCTP part of draft-welzl- .. based on only RFC 4960 and not on RFC 6458?" - was brought up several times.

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

> On 4. nov. 2015, at 19.11, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: >> HI, >> >> As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported >> by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into >>

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-welzl-taps-transports-00.txt

Hi, > On 05 Oct 2015, at 20:42, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Have others read this draft yet? It is clearly aimed at addressing charter > deliverable #1. Do other folks have an opinion on how well it helps the > group achieve the goals in our charter? Should we use this

Re: [Taps] Draft TAPS minutes from IETF-94

Hi, Two comments in line: > On 17 Nov 2015, at 00:21, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Kyle Rose has done a nice job with the minutes based on his and Dave > Lawrence's notes. Many thanks, guys! > > TAPS folk: please review these minutes and send comments to the list. > >

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-welzl-taps-transports-00.txt

so how the docs >> are useful to different people. I'd like to see both mature and provide >> inputs to move forward. >> >> Gorry >> >> >>> Interesting and inline to getting transport API(s) >>> >>> Marie-José Montpetit >>&g

[Taps] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-welzl-taps-transports-00.txt

ep 2015 10:35:33 CEST > To: Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no>, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no>, > Michael Tuexen <tue...@fh-muenster.de>, Naeem Khademi <nae...@ifi.uio.no>, > Michael Tuexen <tue...@fh-muenster.de>, Naeem Khademi <nae...@ifi.uio.no> >

Re: [Taps] What about draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services ?

P or UDP because they want to work through >>> NATs >>> >>> 2) lots of services do just fine with the services provided by TCP or >>> UDP >>> >>> It would be useful to address those issues head-on. Otherwise, this >>> really looks like a g

Re: [Taps] What about draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services ?

ces provided by TCP or UDP > > It would be useful to address those issues head-on. Otherwise, this > really looks like a group that's looking under its own lamppost for > solutions. > > Joe > > On 1/30/2016 12:40 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >&g

Re: [Taps] new TAPS ID: draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-00

Hi, I'd also like to request to present draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-00 or maybe an -01 version if we manage to do one by the meeting (which I doubt). This will just be a quick update. As for the UDP and UDP-Lite draft below, it does look to me like a very welcome addition to

Re: [Taps] draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-01

Sent from my iPhone > On 3. apr. 2016, at 08.54, > wrote: > > When someone talks about using TCP or SCTP then they are typically using > an API to the transport that hides a lot of details. My present draft is > only about the Datagram aspects of

Re: [Taps] draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-01

Hi, I don’t want to go into specifics about this draft, that should be up to its authors… just a general point: > On 3. apr. 2016, at 21.20, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > 1. Steps 1 and 2 look to me like "inside sausage factory", aka: > trying to reverse engineer the

Re: [Taps] Abstracting away multi-streaming usage of multiple paths

> On 19. jul. 2016, at 17.40, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > > > On 7/19/2016 5:27 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >> Thanks - I agree, it’s on the agenda for tomorrow’s MPTCP session, and TAPS >> is the day after, which fits nicely. >> >>

Re: [Taps] MPTCP Socket API and TAPS

and now it seems I can’t get the MPTCP group’s email address right… Sorry folks! > On 19. jul. 2016, at 23.09, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > OMG! > Typo below - NEAT is the a research project implementing TAPS, and I wrote > this email after the social… e

[Taps] Abstracting away multi-streaming and usage of multiple paths

Hi, draft-gjessing-taps-minset-02 suggests that all transport service features related to multi-streaming and usage of multiple paths are “automatable”. The rationale is given in Section 4: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gjessing-taps-minset-02#section-4 (this particular section says

Re: [Taps] agenda planning for chicago

; > > > On 22 Dec 2016, at 20:16, Michael Welzl wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We NEATers would love to give the presentation that was dropped the last >> time. >> Other news from my / our side: >> - getting closer to the finish line with the -usage draft:

Re: [Taps] agenda planning for chicago

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpa...@apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Feb 23, 2017, at 12:55 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >>&

Re: [Taps] [irsg] Experimental Breakout Room Layout

+1 > On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Sounds like a neat idea! Worth a try at least. > > Tommy > >> On Feb 13, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: >> >> Hey TAPS working group- >> >> I think this layout would be a good fit for our

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-03.txt

to be directly > incorporated in draft-ietf-taps-transport-usage. > Michael Welzl I think indicated that this text will be copied from rev > -usage-udp-02. > > (2) It contains small changes to the document text to allow this to be > publsihed as a separate document. T

Re: [Taps] TAPS agenda proposals

Forwarding, as Aaron asked for these requests to be sent to the list. Similarly, we’ll 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 /

Re: [Taps] draft-trammell-post-sockets

sounds good to me! - note that there's also a draft on happy-eyeballing, not presented this time but still active cheers michael > > Thanks! > Tommy > >> On Nov 16, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >> >> Hi Tommy, >> >

[Taps] TAPS: update from NEAT

Dear all, I just wanted to point the mailing list to our slides that we didn’t get to present: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-taps-taps-related-topics-from-the-neat-project-naeem-khademi-00.pdf Maybe there’s a chance next time for an update? We NEATers saw significant

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-03.txt

> On 10. okt. 2016, at 19.10, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, Gorry (et al.), > > On 10/10/2016 9:56 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk > wrote: >> ... >> OK, so in the context of TAPS, the WG called for a list of UDP services. >> This is what is in the ID. ... >>

Re: [Taps] MTU / equivalent at the transport layer

> On 09 Dec 2016, at 09:46, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 09/12/2016 08:09, Michael Welzl wrote: >>> On 07 Dec 2016, at 20:29, Joe Touch<to...@isi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> FYI, there are two different "largest m

Re: [Taps] MTU / equivalent at the transport layer

> On 09 Dec 2016, at 16:18, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > > > On 12/9/2016 12:09 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >>> On 07 Dec 2016, at 20:29, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> FYI, there are two different "largest messages&q

Re: [Taps] MTU / equivalent at the transport layer

Hi, This direction definitely makes sense to me, too. I see some tension here, though - on the one hand, Joe is (as usual) arguing "cleanliness", i.e. keep layering right. On the other hand, applications tend to want to know a message size that doesn't get fragmented along an IPv4 path (as

Re: [Taps] MTU / equivalent at the transport layer

> On 09 Dec 2016, at 23:13, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 12/9/2016 1:38 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote: >>> On 9 Dec 2016, at 22:30, Joe Touch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/9/2016 1:26 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote: Not sure what the reassembly limit is... SCTP

[Taps] Experimental TCP RFCs affecting the API?

Hi, As I'm working on an update of draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage to also incorporate Experimental TCP RFCs, I wonder which of them had an impact on the API - I mean any form of text describing how applications use the protocol. Clearly, TFO is such a case (RFC 7413). Any others? Thanks in

Re: [Taps] MTU / equivalent at the transport layer

Hi, Just trying to understand, so we're not talking past each other. Please note that I'm not trying to argue in any direction with my comments below, just asking for clarification: > On 09 Dec 2016, at 18:32, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > > > On 12/9/2016 8

Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-02 - just DSCP

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Gorry (erg) wrote: > > > This reply is just about the DSCP and QoS. > > Everything you say about TAPS trying to set DSCP values seems consistent with > normal diffserv use to me: Just because an app sets a DSCP does not mean the >

Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-02

Ahh, sorry, no … I ALWAYS try to carefully check everything and THEN a thought appears immediately after pressing the “send” button. About aborting vs. closing: >> --- >> Abort without delivering... >> >> Abortis currently specified for SCTP and TCP. If one assumes the bound >> semantics for

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-gjessing-taps-minset-04.txt

and check, for things that make you go "huh??". Thanks! Michael > On 13 Mar 2017, at 17:06, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > Dear TAPS WG, > > This update addresses the feedback that we got at the last meeting: people > said that this minset isn't mu

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-03.txt

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 09:06, Yoshifumi Nishida <nish...@sfc.wide.ad.jp> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > > On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > > > Dear

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-04.txt

Hi, Thanks a lot for checking this! > On Apr 5, 2017, at 8:01 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > > > On 4/5/2017 5:45 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >> This is the minor change that I promised at the last meeting - mainly to >> include TCP Authentica

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-04.txt

BTW, Just a quick last question, to make sure I get this right: Oh, OK - then you would want to say that the keyID and nextkeyIDs fall under BOTH SEND/RECEIVE and the CONNECTION.MAINTENANCE section. When handing over the keyID and nextkeyIDs on SEND, this just means that these new

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-03.txt

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is a quite major update: from our (author's) point of view, it now (at > last!) captures all the RFC-defined API primitives / transport features of > TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, U

[Taps] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gjessing-taps-minset-04.txt

never really wrote up anywhere. A lot of love has gone into this document ;-) Cheers, Michael > Begin forwarded message: > > From: <internet-dra...@ietf.org> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gjessing-taps-minset-04.txt > Date: 13 Mar 2017 16:55:05 CET > To: M

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-03.txt

ge of Transport Features Provided by IETF > Transport Protocols > Authors : Michael Welzl > Michael Tuexen > Naeem Khademi > Filename: draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-03.txt > Pages

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-04.txt

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > > > On 4/5/2017 2:23 PM, Michael Welzl wrote: >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Michael, >>> >>> >&g

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-04.txt

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > Hi, Michael, > > > On 4/5/2017 1:10 PM, Michael Welzl wrote: >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: >>> ... >>> Set_auth and get_auth are eith

[Taps] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-04.txt

ports-usage-04.txt > Date: 5 Apr 2017 14:42:24 CEST > To: Michael Tüxen <tue...@fh-muenster.de>, Michael Welzl > <mich...@ifi.uio.no>, Michael Tuexen <tue...@fh-muenster.de>, Naeem Khademi > <nae...@ifi.uio.no>, <taps-cha...@ietf.org> > Resent-From: <

Re: [Taps] Charter change for security

Agree 100% - I think this proposal is exactly the right way to do it. Cheers, Michael > On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Kyle Rose wrote: > > Proposal: > > (1) Strike the last paragraph of the charter ("TAPS is not chartered to > perform detailed analysis..."). > > (2) Change

Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning

Hi, In line: > On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > > Updated: > > 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? I appreciated this

Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning

Hi all, > On Jun 29, 2017, at 7:09 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > > >> On Jun 29, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: >> >> hi Aaron, >> >>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 17:36, Aaron Falk wrote: >>> >>> Updating. Our agenda time is

Re: [Taps] New Version Notification for draft-tiesel-taps-communitgrany-00.txt

Hi, +1 on discussing terminology: this is a painful read, because it’s a document that puts a finger deep into a wound :-) So it seems to me that it’s clear we need to agree on a common terminology. Since I won’t be there, just for the record: I don’t have strong opinions about terminology.

Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning

… and the latest version of the minset draft excludes security from the final minset, mentioning that this will be addressed in a separate draft (which should be this one). Cheers, Michael > On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Yes, we’d like to add this as

Re: [Taps] Prague agenda planning

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Aaron Falk <aaron.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:53, Michael Welzl wrote: > >>> 1. **`draft-gjessing-taps-minset-05.txt`** >>> >>>* There’s been some interesting discussion on the draf

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

Hi, Thanks a lot for all your comments (plus the nits we authors of the other -usage draft received offline). I’ll try to address them all - but there are a two technical questions in this email that made me stop, so I’ll cut all the editorial stuff away and discuss them here - in line below:

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

Well, that may be true, but it's also not how it should be, according to the rfcs... and apps assuming such misbehavior isn't going to make the situation any better. today tcp relies on routers not introducing huge reordering, and net admins hopefully know that... so they cause harm by

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

In line: > On May 12, 2017, at 6:23 PM, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > > More below. > > On 12/05/2017, 16:27, Michael Welzl wrote: >>> On May 12, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Gorry Fairhurst<go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> S

Re: [Taps] WGLC start for -transports-usage- docs

Dear Tommy, Thanks a lot for your comments! Very helpful - and painful too :-) to fix the messy style (lower case / upper case / ..), which originated from me just copy+pasting it from the various source RFCs… I should have fixed this long ago, I think it looks much better now - so thanks

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06.txt

ote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Transport Services of the IETF. > >Title : On the Usage of Transport Features Provided by IETF > Transport Protocols > A

Re: [Taps] review comments - Re: WGLC start for -transports-usage- docs

Dear Aaron, Thanks a lot for your comments! In line: > On Jun 19, 2017, at 8:20 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > > IMO, the doc looks good and should be published. See below for a couple of > comments that should be addressed before submission for AD review. > > For both docs,

Re: [Taps] Feedback Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gjessing-taps-minset-05.txt

Hi, and thanks a lot for your comments! Answers in line: > On Jun 26, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Theresa Enghardt > wrote: > > Hi, > > when reading the minset draft, I stumbled over a couple of points. Some of > them may be nits and/or obvious to everyone except me, but

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

Hi, Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers in line below, marked with [Michael]. When I say "done" I mean my local copy - still need to fix some more nits, but I thought sharing this answer already now is useful. Cheers, Michael > 2. Introduction > > This document presents defined

Re: [Taps] Socket Intents Draft – draft-tiesel-taps-socketintents-00

Hi, Thanks indeed for sharing this - I think this is very interesting input to the group. I agree with the things Tommy says below, but I have some additional thoughts that I wanted to share. Our charter is about existing protocols and what they can do. For TCP, MPTCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP and

Re: [Taps] Eric Rescorla's No Record on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Sorry for the noise and for my ignorance regarding IETF style here - this is indeed a mistake, in that the statement that you mention about TFO was supposed to be a quote from RFC 7413, but doesn’t stand out as such (so, good catch, thanks!). How do I make this clear enough to avoid a

Re: [Taps] AD review for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06

Hi! Thanks a lot - I addressed them all. Details below, in line; cheers, Michael > On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > These are all editorial. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > A nit - in this text, > >Transport Protocol: an

Re: [Taps] AD Evaluation on the relationship between draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-06 and draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-04

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 10:24 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > wrote: > > Just to make these documents a bit more digestible by reviewers, ADs, and > readers, who will almost certainly be reading them as a set ... > > I'm OK with the separation of the Pass 1

Re: [Taps] Review of draft-trammell-taps-post-sockets-03

> On Nov 13, 2017, at 8:07 AM, Tommy Pauly <tpa...@apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 11, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no >> <mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> In line: >> >>

[Taps] API design: dependencies or buffer control?

Hi, Another thought related to the post-sockets draft: Post-sockets lets an application programmer define dependencies. That’s good, because dependencies exist, but it comes at the cost of complexity. My gut feeling tells me: if you have dependencies to take care of, it’s best to leave the

Re: [Taps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-taps-minset-00.txt

Hi, In line: > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > A couple initial comments on the minset document: > > In Section 4: > > - Title should be "4. A MinSet Abstract Interface" not "4. An MinSet > Abstract Interface” Ack, > For this: > > 3. Not offer

[Taps] Review of draft-trammell-taps-post-sockets-03

Dear all, Because of the planned request for draft-trammell-taps-post-sockets-03 to become a WG item, I gave the draft another close read and decided to write a review based on this. I hope it's useful. To me, post-sockets aims in the right direction - I like a number of things about it: the

Re: [Taps] Review of draft-trammell-taps-post-sockets-03

> On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Just a couple initial notes that may help: > > - The version diff you should look at is between -01 and -03. -02 is the same > as -03, but had a typo. > > - You've mentioned previously that you thought

Re: [Taps] Review of draft-trammell-taps-post-sockets-03

Hi, In line: > On Nov 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Tommy Pauly <tpa...@apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no >> <mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 11, 20

Re: [Taps] IETF100 meeting agenda uploaded

Hi, > On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:21 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > Indeed! But, as far as I can tell, drafts like > draft-tiesel-taps-socketintents-01 are not trying to propose a top-level API, > but rather an aspect of the API. I agree with everything you say here. About

Re: [Taps] One RFC, or two, for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage and draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp

Hi, Thanks; I just posted an update of draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage which, I believe, addresses all the last comments. From the revision info in the draft: *** -09: for consistency with the draft-ietf-taps-minset-00, adjusted the following transport features in "pass 3": "Choice

Re: [Taps] working group last call for draft-ietf-taps-minset

Dear Mikael, Thanks a lot for reading, and thanks for your feedback! Answers in line: > On May 11, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Thu, 10 May 2018, Aaron Falk wrote: > >> Please read the draft and send comments to the list. This document is >> planned

Re: [Taps] working group last call for draft-ietf-taps-minset

Hi, Thanks a lot for reading and for your feedback! Answers in line: > On May 17, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Theresa Enghardt > wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have read the draft, including the appendix, and I think it is in good > shape and can be published. > > However, I

Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-01

Hi, > On May 22, 2018, at 8:13 PM, Christopher Wood > wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Many thanks for reading the document and taking time to provide comments! > They are greatly appreciated. I've filed #33 ( Gee, thanks to you for this friendly response after

Re: [Taps] New Transport Networking APIs in iOS 12 beta

Hi, This - in particular your answer to Michael - is indeed extremely cool! Thanks to you and your colleagues at Apple for pursuing this direction, and thanks for sharing it with the group! About this statement in the original email: *** Either way, we’d love for everyone to take a read

  1   2   3   >