hi Philipp, all, parachuting-into-the-thread comments inline below.
> On 4 Nov 2019, at 21:36, Philipp S. Tiesel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > AVE! > Philipp S. Tiesel > > -- > Philipp S. Tiesel > https://philipp.tiesel.net/ > >> On 4. Nov 2019, at 19:18, Kyle Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Evidently, the transport security document. > > Yes, we need to discuss next steps there. I still hope there will be some > discussion > on the list this and next week so we do not need to spend too much precious > face time > with this issue. > > I also see the state of the three other documents as agenda Items: > - Architecture > - Should be nearly finished, but for those you have not read one of the > last two versions, > please do so and give feedback! IIRC we'd said we wanted to hold this until at least interface was done. But yes, please read this :) (I should re-read, actually). > - Interface I think you've identified the three pending discussions correctly on this doc... > - Framers I need to dig into this a bit (and hope to before Singapore, but I also hoped to have cycles before the interim that didn't happen so MMMV) but I'm a lot happier with the general arrangement in -05 with the bulk of the framer detail in -impl. > - Errors I continue to think that something along the lines of the present underspecification is not wrong here. But we should probably have more text about the shape of that underspecification. > - Multicast ...continues to be the swamp into which all transport efforts wade and subsequently get eaten by rodents of unusual size. :) Practically speaking, this boils down to two issues AFAICT: - We have https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/303 on multicast transport properties. This is marked Ready For Text and assigned to tfpauly, so I'm inclined to let Tommy write some text here (or assign someone else if they'd like to take a crack at it). - We have https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/150 which has a long and varied history which you should go read if you're not familiar with it (or if, like me, you'd forgotten it): - dup'd to https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/170, which was closed by PR on 6 Jun 2018 - reopened to explictly address multicast interaction, languished without discussion for six months - tagged ready for text in January with an assigned volunteer (Jake) but no discussion or guidance otherwise I propose we come to a decision on this in Singapore: commit to text soon (end 2019) or ship without. Cheers, Brian > - Implementation > - Are we satisfied with the structure > - Proxies/Tor/etc… > - Multicast > >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:33 AM Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ok, gang, what should we discuss in Singapore? >> >> --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 _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
