You have grave concerns about crypt on Halloween? And you already have a stake in this issue?
Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch [[email protected]] Sent: 31 October 2013 18:33 To: Martin Stiemerling; [email protected] Subject: Re: Announcing the TSVAREA session on "Evolution of IETF Transport Protocols" @ IETF-88 Martin (et al.) I continue to have grave concerns about additional presentations to the IETF by parties who squat on TCP option codepoints - in this case, TCP Crypt. Any presentation on TCP Crypt to TSV should start - and end - with how they intend to undo the damage they have already done by deploying code using an unassigned codepoint. I have raised this issue before, and it has still not been corrected: https://github.com/sorbo/tcpcrypt/blob/master/kernel/linux/tcpcrypt/tcp_crypt.h This situation needs to change before they should be given continued presence at the IETF IMO. Joe On 10/31/2013 11:13 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Hi all, > > As promised a few more words about this part of the TSVAREA session in > Vancouver: > > The intention of this "Evolution of IETF Transport Protocols" part is to > test the waters if the IETF transport protocols are 'on track' of what > is needed by today's hosts and applications -- and what's happening in > the network. > > There are a number of activities around, see below, that propose changes > to, for instance, TCP, and also new transport protocol proposals. There > is also an on-going collaboration between the Transport Area and the > HTTPbis working group with respect to HTTP/2.0. > > We will tackle a few of the proposals in the session, but there is no > restricition to those. Here they are in no particular order: > > - The Saratoga protocol & interesting things out of this for the > evolution of transport protocols (Presenter: Wes Eddy) > - Functional decomposition of the transport layer (Presenter: Jana Iyengar) > - TCP Crypt (Presenter: Andre Bittau) > - IETF-43 Requirements for Unicast Transport/Sessions (ruts) bof > (Presenter: Spencer Dawkins) > > > Not well that there is also a presentation about the QUIC protocol just > before this discussion. > > > Note even better: > The session does not need to deliver answers to any question that comes > up, but is solely intended as a starting point for further activites, if > needed, or just to note that we have talked about it, but everything is > just fine and we can carry on. > > Thank you, > > Martin > > On 10/23/2013 09:12 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> We would like to give time to the Transport Area to discuss any >> potential need to evolve the IETF transport protocols. >> >> There are a number of proposals discussed in the IETF and outside of the >> IETF on changing parts of TCP (e.g. laminar TCP [1]), reusing parts of >> TCP (e.g., TCP Minion [2]), completely new transport protocols (e.g. >> QUIC [3]), and also discussions about the congestion control approach to >> be used (e.g., delay-based [4], LEDBAT [5]). >> >> (We are fully aware that this list of proposals is incomplete) >> >> Spencer and I are planning a slot in the TSVAREA session at IETF 88 in >> Vancouver to discuss this topic. >> >> More information to come soon. >> >> Let Spencer and me know at [email protected] if you are interested >> in contributing actively to the session. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Spencer and Martin, your TSV ADs. >> >> References >> [1] https://developers.google.com/speed/protocols/tcp-laminar >> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iyengar-minion-concept >> [3] >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RNHkx_VvKWyWg6Lr8SZ-saqsQx7rFV-ev2jRFUoVD34/edit?pli=1 >> >> >> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/charter/ >> [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ledbat/charter/
