From nobody Wed Jun 24 13:00:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3771A8AF6 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.001 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WTc7SZSHWusI for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E8BF1A8AF9 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iecvh10 with SMTP id vh10so40697314iec.3 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:00:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1tjQ71uI0zbpjgpqshwiVRSK1Y94FkcwgtO8ALrZ0ko=; b=Ey0uyXixv58b/zoVUKRjl3vfj+ojo5jxDLH6KN1YXWKrvAhsvPwjfH/Kfee3e00pUi sH5JZI0qgsOrmC73UP7H+3lvW3Dhwrvbmvbj6FBL8Dhbpnk0mdgF4BWhy1MceHLL4WcD v6Sktteg3s8t+9mmd6tPrfU2eQJM9zQgEKWsJ0a5Lov8hmJurCxjx73ubj4QGaxgoVor glIO7W6Ey0wM9R40OXrOf2VWb88IElCc/G5Ycz0oklL8uF8fn1Ic//A8h0QCIdL5VfdJ kK1whbLzc3ArWseZKG/GF9oVd+YJrgMbQWK/mcoA83VrrFekbfx/O0qQZHghe1O9Hp7q goSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.81.201 with SMTP id a9mr26406690icl.9.1435176027667; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.59.225 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:00:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8F66DB52-438A-4F4B-8BD1-666391F28DA9@viagenie.ca> References: <6A2D3D6E-672B-40D9-9FA8-2D8C5A931461@netapp.com> <247E1336-C757-43C6-8D3F-75EA2B91FDB0@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <11548E99-061E-454D-8014-9FA4B5D620FF@netapp.com> <555F3F7D.6090806@it.uc3m.es> <8F66DB52-438A-4F4B-8BD1-666391F28DA9@viagenie.ca> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:00:27 -0400 Message-ID: From: Aaron Falk To: "Eggert, Lars" , =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= , Brian Trammell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba614ed251c41f051948f586 Archived-At: Cc: hops@ietf.org Subject: Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG X-BeenThere: hops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Measuring deployability of new transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:00:30 -0000 --90e6ba614ed251c41f051948f586 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lars, Mirja, Brian- Is there any update on this discussion? Has there been a proposal for a HOPS RG BoF in Prague? --aaron On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > On 22 May 2015, at 10:38, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > > I dont think this should be a short lived effort. >> I mean, at the IETF there is plenty of times that we try to design a >> protocol or protocol extension and we dont really have the data to perfo= rm >> an informed decision. think the HOPS RG could be a starting point for m= any >> protocol design efforts. >> For instance, in the TCPINC BOF, the question about whether encrypted TC= P >> connection would fly over different ports was raised and there was no da= ta >> available. (and it was a fundamental question to understand if the whole >> effort was worthwhile) >> Similar questions now are raised in TCPM when designing the extended >> option format. And again, there is little data around (at least for some >> aspects of it). >> > > agree. others I can think of, such as multi path tcp, many rai protocols= , > > > It would be nice to have a place where people that want to work on desig= n >> can gather data about what works and what doesnt. It would be nice if th= at >> was the HOPS RG, i guess. >> >> In other words, one way of doing this is for the HOPS RG t be a venue fo= r >> people with interesting questions and people who want to measure interst= ing >> things (or for people with interesting questions and people who has data >> that can help them answer the questions) >> >> So, imho, something like HOPS is really missing in the IETF protocol >> design approach. But maybe it is just me. >> > > not. count me in! deployability has not been so much considered. Many > protocols have been designed and then a fallback to http/443 was added > later which makes the protocol brittle. > > Marc. > > > >> >> >> >> El 22/05/15 a las 16:06, Eggert, Lars escribi=C3=B3: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2015-5-22, at 15:46, Mirja K=C3=BChlewind >>> wrote: >>> >>>> there are people from RIPE who are interested in this work and were >>>> already at the BarBoF. Further we are also in contact which the people= from >>>> CAIDA. And, as you can see on the agenda, we are also talking to Googl= e and >>>> Akamai with people who were also at the BarBoF >>>> >>> so that's promising, but not actually a large number of folks. I wonder >>> if a discussion among four groups really needs an RG established. Isn't >>> this something that might as well be handled ad hoc? >>> >>> A second concern I have is that the topic here is fairly narrow in scop= e >>> ("let's discuss data around how bad middleboxes break things"), and rat= her >>> short-lived (i.e., once that is done, the group is done). The IRTF trie= s to >>> charter groups that are long-lived and try to tackle problem areas of >>> substantial size, and I wonder if this is the case here. >>> >>> (Since I was not at the bar BOF, I may be fundamentally misunderstandin= g >>> something about this proposal. I'm only going on what is in the charter >>> text proposal.) >>> >>> Lars >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hops mailing list >>> hops@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hops mailing list >> hops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops >> > > _______________________________________________ > hops mailing list > hops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops > --90e6ba614ed251c41f051948f586 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lars, Mirja, Brian-

Is there any update= on this discussion? Has there been a proposal for a HOPS RG BoF in Prague?=

--aaron
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Marc Blanchet= <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> wrote:


On 22 May 2015, at 10:38, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

I dont think this should be a short lived effort.
I mean, at the IETF there is plenty of times that we try to design a protoc= ol or protocol extension and we dont really have the data to perform an inf= ormed decision.=C2=A0 think the HOPS RG could be a starting point for many = protocol design efforts.
For instance, in the TCPINC BOF, the question about whether encrypted TCP c= onnection would fly over different ports was raised and there was no data a= vailable. (and it was a fundamental question to understand if the whole eff= ort was worthwhile)
Similar questions now are raised in TCPM when designing the extended option= format. And again, there is little data around (at least for some aspects = of it).

 agree.=C2=A0 others I can think of, such as multi path tcp, many rai protoc= ols,


It would be nice to have a place where people that want to work on design c= an gather data about what works and what doesnt. It would be nice if that w= as the HOPS RG, i guess.

In other words, one way of doing this is for the HOPS RG t be a venue for p= eople with interesting questions and people who want to measure intersting = things (or for people with interesting questions and people who has data th= at can help them answer the questions)

So, imho, something like HOPS is really missing in the IETF protocol design= approach. But maybe it is just me.

 not. count me in! deployability has not been so much considered. Many proto= cols have been designed and then a fallback to http/443 was added later whi= ch makes the protocol brittle.

Marc.






El 22/05/15 a las 16:06, Eggert, Lars escribi=C3=B3:
Hi,

On 2015-5-22, at 15:46, Mirja K=C3=BChlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch<= /a>> wrote:
there are people from RIPE who are interested in this work and were already= at the BarBoF. Further we are also in contact which the people from CAIDA.= And, as you can see on the agenda, we are also talking to Google and Akama= i with people who were also at the BarBoF
so that's promising, but not actually a large number of folks. I wonder= if a discussion among four groups really needs an RG established. Isn'= t this something that might as well be handled=C2=A0 ad hoc?

A second concern I have is that the topic here is fairly narrow in scope (&= quot;let's discuss data around how bad middleboxes break things"),= and rather short-lived (i.e., once that is done, the group is done). The I= RTF tries to charter groups that are long-lived and try to tackle problem a= reas of substantial size, and I wonder if this is the case here.

(Since I was not at the bar BOF, I may be fundamentally misunderstanding so= mething about this proposal. I'm only going on what is in the charter t= ext proposal.)

Lars


_______________________________________________
hops mailing list
hops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops

_______________________________________________
hops mailing list
hops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops

_______________________________________________
hops mailing list
hops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hops

--90e6ba614ed251c41f051948f586-- From nobody Wed Jun 24 14:07:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2A61B2E27 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:07:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UdDr_6JFelNk for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx142.netapp.com (mx142.netapp.com [216.240.21.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E7C51B2E25 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:07:04 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,673,1427785200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="49728972" Received: from hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.41]) by mx142-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2015 14:02:03 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx08-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:02:03 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::6843:58b6:e8e4:4968%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:02:05 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Aaron Falk Thread-Topic: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG Thread-Index: AQHQlIB3N4briqkfT0238Ir58nYNJZ2IcLaAgAAHJICAAAVrAP//lTJ2gDSqtICAABE1AA== Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:02:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6A2D3D6E-672B-40D9-9FA8-2D8C5A931461@netapp.com> <247E1336-C757-43C6-8D3F-75EA2B91FDB0@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <11548E99-061E-454D-8014-9FA4B5D620FF@netapp.com> <555F3F7D.6090806@it.uc3m.es> <8F66DB52-438A-4F4B-8BD1-666391F28DA9@viagenie.ca> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EB1B246C-1805-472A-A68D-93F27996E691"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Brian Trammell , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mirja_K=FChlewind?= , "hops@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [hops] Proposal for HOPS RG X-BeenThere: hops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Measuring deployability of new transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:07:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_EB1B246C-1805-472A-A68D-93F27996E691 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_53B9F711-D8DD-4604-BC66-DF76A4D84118" --Apple-Mail=_53B9F711-D8DD-4604-BC66-DF76A4D84118 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2015-6-24, at 13:00, Aaron Falk wrote: > Is there any update on this discussion? No. > Has there been a proposal for a HOPS RG BoF in Prague? Yes, there is a slot scheduled. Lars --Apple-Mail=_53B9F711-D8DD-4604-BC66-DF76A4D84118 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii On 2015-6-24, at 13:00, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there any update on = this discussion?

No.

Has there been a proposal for a HOPS RG BoF in = Prague?

Yes, = there is a slot scheduled.

Lars
= --Apple-Mail=_53B9F711-D8DD-4604-BC66-DF76A4D84118-- --Apple-Mail=_EB1B246C-1805-472A-A68D-93F27996E691 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAlWLGsoACgkQIWcjmsUTWRpfVACgisx4R4qRZ8+QC+D8Il5SnTrW kS0An2CA73M1HwpTI2RcYM1xix/BmIH5 =Au8L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_EB1B246C-1805-472A-A68D-93F27996E691-- From nobody Mon Jun 29 04:15:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B761A8F41 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:15:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JsRM_GfOfCOF for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 738341A8F3E for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35788D9310; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:15:54 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fZkU-nM4b57l; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:15:53 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [192.168.178.33] (x5f7171b5.dyn.telefonica.de [95.113.113.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A846D930E; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:15:53 +0200 (MEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:15:52 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20150626235518.5508.67060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: hops@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: Brian Trammell Subject: [hops] Fwd: hopsrg - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 93 X-BeenThere: hops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Measuring deployability of new transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:15:56 -0000 Hi all, we have a meeting slot for a first hops RG meeting on Friday morning: > hopsrg Session 1 (2:30:00) > Friday, Morning Session I 0900-1130 > Room Name: Congress Hall III size: 225 > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80= =94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94= =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94 We=E2=80=99ll post a draft agenda soon. If you still have agenda = requests please let us know and we will try to figure out how to = integrate them! Brian & Mirja