Hi, I’ll answer with an apology: "early Jan, then” turned out differently… indeed we’ve been working on the -usage and -minset docs since fall and did NOT just wait until the last minute! BUT it’s taken so long! It’s just… a lot of stuff.
I think we have some interesting suggestions to make, coming out of the minset draft. I do think these are important next things to discuss - we should be focusing on charter item 2, what *is* the subset of transport services that a TAPS system should provide? From the top of my head, I can think of these 3 major questions that appeared to us when we worked on our drafts: - how do we handle multi-streaming? It seems to us that it shouldn’t be visible as such, there should be “flows” or “channels” or “connections” or whatever, with priorities and a notion of groups (could be a float each, assigned to “flows” as a property) - how do we handle messaging? If, starting from SCTP, we allow only transport features that can fall-back to TCP (a part of our minset work), then we end up with some ways to send a message, but we can only receive a bytestream. This can lead to a nice and uniform and downwards-compatible interface for the case where a receiving application doesn't need the transport to tell it where messages begin / end (and that’s the ONLY limitation!). We came up with this “application-framed bytestream” (AFra-Bytestream) concept in NEAT) - what about message sizes? I’m not sure this was fully resolved on the mailing list… Cheers Michael > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:15 PM, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Picking up on this thread and soliciting agenda items for Chicago. What are > the key questions TAPS should be focusing on at this meeting? > > —aaron > > > > > 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: quite a lot of >> updates already done, one major one due early Jan, then we want to submit… >> - some ideas (thanks to everyone for input at the last meeting! that was >> helpful!) for the minset draft, it’s bound to change quite a bit and >> hopefully provoke an interesting discussion; for now, the plan is to also >> finish that off fast, i.e. maybe in january… >> >> cheers >> Michael >> >> >>> On Dec 21, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The secretariat has issued the call for wg sessions. It would be helpful >>> if we had an early idea of the agenda for a TAPS meeting in March. Should >>> we try again to get in the talks on post-sockets and NEAT? Are there any >>> other implementation projects that would like to present? Any other topics >>> to discuss? >>> >>> —aaron >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Taps mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
