Subject: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:09:11 +0200

Hi,

I did had the comment about prior work in the space of middlebox 
signaling during the PLUS today (via jabber).

And I got an interesting reply (from Aaron I believe) a long these lines:
The prior work just didn't do the job and PLUS will do all better.

This was a nice, but without any technial meat behind, right?! :-/

So why should PLUS be better as the pack (e.g., NSIS, as we talk about 
path-coupled signaling)?

And by the way, I am not a promoter of NSIS (though I have been one of 
the co-chairs), but an interest IETF member that would like understand 
why people believe making a new protocol will just solve the problems 
others have run into before? And those problems haven't been fixed by 
today.

Thanks in advance,

   Martin

---

From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:20:40 +0000

For what it is worth, NSIS has been raised quite some time ago, e.g.: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/current/msg00367.html

There was some follow-up discussion on in-band vs. out-of-band.

Of course, NSIS was not the first attempt in this space.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spud [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Martin
> Stiemerling
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than
> the pack?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud

---

From: "mls.ietf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:28:03 +0200

Hi Michael, all,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> For what it is worth, NSIS has been raised quite some time ago, e.g.:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/current/msg00367.html
>

Right and I am not riding the NSIS train but more the why the hell all
attempts to make use of path-coupled signaling to let endpoints talk to the
net and vice versa did fail.

I do not see that any of the reasons why they failed, e.g., missing trust
on a global, Internet-wide scale, is not valid anymore today.

Cheers,

  Martin