Subject: [Trans] Gossip protocol text

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:09:49 -0800

Hi, all:

One of the issues that came up during the meeting in Toronto is how
to handle the specification of a gossip protocol.  Ben has a proposal
included in the current draft.  But, the sense of the room during the
session was that this should probably be split off into a separate
document, a gossip protocol specifically for CT, intended to be
published as a working group product and as an experimental protocol.

So, we're checking to see if there's mailing list agreement that
this is how we'd like to handle specification of a gossip protocol.
(At this time I'm less concerned about whether or not this would be
an experimental RFC than I am about whether or not there's agreement
to split this out).

In terms of whether or not we'd have someone to take on producing
the document, Linus Nordberg has volunteered, so we do have
someone to take responsibility if there's agreement.

Melinda

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:05:25 -0700

> an experimental RFC than I am about whether or not there's agreement

I think it makes a certain amount of sense to split it out.

> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

---

From: Matt Palmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:48:34 +1000

> an experimental RFC than I am about whether or not there's agreement

I think it makes sense for the specification of the gossip protocol to be
separate from the specification for the log protocol.

- Matt

---

From: Dmitry Belyavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:22:58 +0400

Hello Melinda,

> someone to take responsibility if there's agreement.
I think that specification of a gossip protocol should be a separate
document.

-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

---

From: Linus Nordberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:08:27 +0200

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote
Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:09:49 -0800:

| One of the issues that came up during the meeting in Toronto is how
| to handle the specification of a gossip protocol.  Ben has a proposal
| included in the current draft.  [...]

Which current draft is that? draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-04 does not
describe a gossip protocol.

Is there a proposed gossip protocol somewhere I haven't looked?

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:51:59 -0400

Melinda,

Your characterization of the discussion matches my recollection.
There seemed to be a sense that a gossip protocol was going to
be too new and untested to include in 6962-bis. That motivated the
plan for it to appear in a separate doc, targeted for Experimental
(initially).

Steve

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:33:01 -0800

> Is there a proposed gossip protocol somewhere I haven't looked?

Apologies - it's not in the current draft, but the proposal is
in his slides for the July meeting
(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-trans-2.pdf).

Melinda

---

From: Linus Nordberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:26:50 +0200

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote
Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:33:01 -0800:

| On 8/21/14 5:08 AM, Linus Nordberg wrote:
| > Which current draft is that? draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-04 does not
| > describe a gossip protocol.
| > 
| > Is there a proposed gossip protocol somewhere I haven't looked?
| 
| Apologies - it's not in the current draft, but the proposal is
| in his slides for the July meeting
| (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-trans-2.pdf).

Oh right, thanks. Apologies for totally forgetting about those.