Addendum: I got a private note that there is at least one other potentially major TAPS project going on, though they are not ready to go public. So I withdraw that part of my comment.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:16 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm glad we did this work, but the energy here has gotten pretty low and I > wonder if it's worth doing extensions if there's exactly 1 deployment of > any significance. > > Furthermore, if the only thing people are excited about is a QUIC mapping, > I'd rather we just do it in QUICWG than have the overhead of a WG for this. > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 12:26 PM Devon H. O'Dell <dhobsd= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Most of my questions / comments / contributions have been about >> discoverability / configuration, and I wondered if there'd be interest in >> exploring the policy and configuration space for Transport Services. I'm >> thinking along the lines of APIs for configuration tools to manage or >> discover policy (e.g. enumerate local endpoints, gather properties, collect >> / set resolver configurations). My apologies for having missed the last >> several meetings, but would love to discuss this at the next interim. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> --dho >> >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:35 AM Reese Enghardt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear TAPS, >>> >>> As we are moving towards finishing the three core documents, the next >>> step will be to recharter or conclude. >>> >>> We have talked about possible further milestones related to mapping >>> documents, and we have a few related issues on the Github >>> ( >>> https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Amappings). >>> >>> >>> >>> However, we have not seen much activity on this topic since IETF 113, >>> and we have no related currently active documents. >>> >>> I wanted to give you a heads-up that, given this state, the chairs are >>> wondering if it'll be time to conclude TAPS once the core documents have >>> made their way to the RFC Editor, unless we see evidence of substantial >>> interest and activity regarding further milestones. >>> >>> Nothing has been decided yet, and we will be happy to discuss this >>> question. >>> >>> TAPS is not meeting at IETF 116, but we can consider scheduling a >>> virtual interim meeting or a WG meeting at IETF 117 if we have content >>> for a fruitful discussion. >>> >>> Please let me know your thoughts. >>> >>> Best, >>> Reese >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
