Minutes for TAPS at IETF-94
minutes-94-taps-1

taps minutes
IETF-94 Yokohama
Reported by David Lawrence and Kyle Rose

Note Well covered.

1. Agenda bashing
2. WG Status
3. draft-ietf-taps-transports
4. draft-welzl-taps-transports
5. A way forward for "document 2"
6. AOB

Dec 2015 planned: Document 1, informational, to be sent to IESG defining
services provided by IETF transport protos and congestion control mechanisms.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Trammell, speaking on draft-ietf-taps-transports (version 7)

Charter and abstract basically unchanged since last meeting.  Thinks the
document is ready for December publication.  There are a few editor's notes
which can mostly be dropped, except for some text needed in 3.9.2 about the RTP
interface.  Drop section 4.1 (Transport Matrix).  Then push as -08 and ready
for WGLC.

Poll of room:  anyone see any issues to prevent it going to WGLC?  Silence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naeem Khademi, speaking on draft-welzl-taps-transports-00

Scope of the draft: describe only existing IETF protos for two endpoint comms. 
Covers only TCP and SCTP currently, but he intends to cover all the protocols
listed.

Goal: use a generic approach to help designers/API devs to know how to use the
protocols.

3 pass approach:

        1. relevant parts of proto RFCs are summarized as to what they provide
        and how they are used. Identify all defined forms of interaction
        between the proto and its user.

        2. categorize into connection-related vs. data transmission, such as
        identifying connect() in TCP as connection-related and sending and
        receiving as about data transmission.

        3. present a superset of all services in all protos, turning it upside
        down.  For each service, list which protocols provide it.

Karen: The document here needs to refer to latest RFCs on SCTP, like 6458, not
just 4960. Christian: We use protocols based on how they work and what costs
are involved, not solely based on the API that's available. Some cost resulting
from an implementation that does not appear anywhere in the API needs to be
taken into account. Aaron: Problem as he understood it is that there is a
desire to be able to use new protocols (starting with existing standards) where
they would work, and fall back to older protocols where they don't work. Goal
wasn't composition, but to use the best protocol you can that works end-to-end.
Mirja: What's needed is a good interface for choosing the right protocol.
Christian: Choose HTTP over TCP because they want to get through firewalls, or
need to limit overhead, etc. Brian: deconstructing and reconstructing each
protocol has been a very useful process.  Would be interesting to see whether
you get the same result if you used SCTP's abstract API vs the newer SCTP
socket api.

Mic (?): Doesn't seem that your looked at differences in implementations from
RFC specifications.  Really should cover that. Naeem: Hope to cover other
protocols as doc evolves.

Gorry via Jabber: Just add the protos from mailing list discussion (UDP,
UDP-Lite, MPTCP, DTLS and TLS). And probably DCCP. (General agreement on
Gorry's suggestion.) Will confirm on mailing list.

Aaron: Who's read the document? Raise your hands.
Not many people have read the document, but at least the people at the
microphone had.

Aaron: Hum if we should adopt doc (as supplement to target 1). Some humming.
Not? Silence.

Determined that a milestone should be added based on what the document
addresses, but this does not require a change to the WG scope, and therefore no
change required to the charter. (Aaron) It is also the case that two documents
can address one milestone. (Brian T.)

Naeem will change his document to conform to the group's terminology
throughout. (Implication is that the other document will be changed as well, if
necessary.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stein Gjessing on document 2, defining taps system between application layer
and transport layer.

Stein said that document 2 should be based upon draft-welzl-taps-transport
because this explains the "how", not the "what" (which is addressed by
draft-ietf-taps-transports).

A document 3 is needed to describe an abstract interface between taps and
application.

Aaron: Looking for volunteers to do close review of
draft-ietf-taps-tranports-08.  (Silence, unfortunately.)

AOB: ... none.