I can lead the discussion around implementation issues, as Anna will be remote.
Best, Tommy > On Nov 6, 2019, at 2:54 PM, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Brian. > > We need discussion leads for -architecture, -implementation, and -security. > > --aaron > > On 5 Nov 2019, at 0:58, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: > > I can do the issue scrub for -interface. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 5 Nov 2019, at 00:09, Aaron Falk <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Draft agenda based on what I’ve heard. Putting the security draft last as >> I’m uncertain at this point whether the discussion will converge. Also, >> rather than Philipp’s list of topics, I suggest someone should scrub the >> open issues. Who should drive the discussion? Other comments? >> >> Administrivia (10m) - Chairs >> Issue review for (50m) >> draft-ietf-taps-architecture-05 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-taps-arch-05> >> draft-ietf-taps-interface-05 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-taps-interface-05> >> draft-ietf-taps-implementation-05 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-taps-impl-05> >> IETF last call comments on draft-ietf-taps-security-09 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-09> (30m) >> Ref [from Ekr >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/R4zjHu8FN7A_3Lvs4TOyuF7kvL8>] >> [from Christian >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/43g1LfmbbL1F5BoUHTwyOleHJU0#>] >> What are our next steps? >> --aaron >> >> On 4 Nov 2019, at 16:26, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: >> >> hi Philipp, all, >> >> parachuting-into-the-thread comments inline below. >> >> On 4 Nov 2019, at 21:36, Philipp S. Tiesel <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> AVE! >> Philipp S. Tiesel >> >> -- >> Philipp S. Tiesel >> https://philipp.tiesel.net/ <https://philipp.tiesel.net/> >> On 4. Nov 2019, at 19:18, Kyle Rose <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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 >> <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 >> <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 >> <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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Ok, gang, what should we discuss in Singapore? >> >> --aaron >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps> >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps> >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps >> <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
