Subject: [Model-t] Restarting model-t

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:00:32 -0600

Hi all!

At the IAB Open meeting during IETF 109, Stephen gave a little update on
model-t and suggested that we should either figure out why it's stuck or get
it back in motion in the new year.

I'm advocating for getting things going again. There's demonstrable interest
and some good, potential outputs in the description of the program. As a
reminder, some of the drafts that are targeted at the model-t discussion
include:

draft-thomson-tmi
draft-mcfadden-smart-endpoint-taxonomy-for-cless
draft-mcfadden-smart-threat-changes
draft-lazanski-users-threat-model-t
draft-lazanski-protocol-sec-design-model-t
draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t
draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-7258-additions
draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-3552-additions
draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-redux

It seems to me that it would be good to schedule up a call with those
interested and figure out a way to move things forward. If available cycles
is the underlying problem, I'm willing to help out with organization.

Any thoughts here?

mark

Mark McFadden
CTO
internet policy advisors llc

---

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 22:45:14 -0800

> is the underlying problem, I'm willing to help out with organization.

My two cents as a lurker and occasional gadfly: it's hard to have a
successful program when there isn't agreement on the problem. That's
particularly true when layer 8 issues get involved. As a result I
think a good number of the drafts are talking past each other. It's
difficult to get a broader consensus by discussing these drafts
individually as a result. It might be worth focusing on narrower parts
of the broader agenda and dealing with them separately, rather than
boil the ocean.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd

--
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim