Subject: [Taps] draft TAPS-99 minutes uploaded

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:09:10 +0200

The Etherpad notes for the Prague TAPS meeting were so good that I’ve 
uploaded them as draft minutes 
<[here](https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/minutes/minutes-99-taps-00.html)>. 
  If you see changes that should be made make them in the Ehterpad 
<[here](http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-taps?useMonospaceFont=true)> 
and I’ll refresh the minutes submission.

Thanks again, Matti!

—aaron

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:49:47 -0400

Some notes on my comments.

that is CANbus::= Controller Area Network Bus.  This has been used in 
Automotive/Vehicle since early 90s.  The new CAN FD messages can have up 
to 64 bytes payload (MTU) (up from 8 bytes of original CAN!).  So it is 
not effective to have an Internetworking or Transport layer...

On 07/21/2017 06:09 AM, Aaron Falk wrote:
> uploaded them as draft minutes <here 
> <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/minutes/minutes-99-taps-00.html>>. 
> If you see changes that should be made make them in the Ehterpad <here 
> <http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-taps?useMonospaceFont=true>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:57:52 -0400

Oh, and the '15.9' comment is IEEE 802.15.9 KMP transport for 802.15.4.

If you look at this you will see an approach for handling KMP as a side 
function from application record messaging.  802.15.4 forces this, as 
there is no ETHType like in 802.3 that 802.1X uses for traffic 
separation.  So it is very much like what a Transport service may have 
to deal with.

Disclaimer:  I was the chair of 802.15.9.

On 07/26/2017 02:49 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Automotive/Vehicle since early 90s.  The new CAN FD messages can have 
> up to 64 bytes payload (MTU) (up from 8 bytes of original CAN!).  So 
> it is not effective to have an Internetworking or Transport layer...
>
>> <here

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:22:07 -0400

Thanks for the additional information, Bob.  I’ve added your comments 
and uploaded a revision to the minutes.

--aaron

On 26 Jul 2017, at 14:57, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

> If you look at this you will see an approach for handling KMP as a 
> side function from application record messaging.  802.15.4 forces 
> this, as there is no ETHType like in 802.3 that 802.1X uses for 
> traffic separation.  So it is very much like what a Transport service 
> may have to deal with.
>
>>> The Etherpad notes for the Prague TAPS meeting were so good that 
>>> I’ve uploaded them as draft minutes <here