[aqm] Draft Honolulu minutes posted

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Sat, 15 November 2014 03:48 UTC

From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Draft Honolulu minutes posted
Thread-Index: AdAAhvKsgvidKflzSn6eZ5hy7E5pUQ==
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:48:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493626C5E8@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/wmDIq5JgQzDju7ifneNej8uceAc
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: [aqm] Draft Honolulu minutes posted
Precedence: list

... before I get on the plane out of here!

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-tsvwg

Many thanks to Aaron Falk and Joel Halpern for taking notes, as
there were lively discussions in both sessions that were not easy
to follow.  They captured everything important.

Here are some important items that people should know about:

1) There are a number of expired WG drafts that need author attention:
	ECN Encapsulation Guidelines
	NAT Behavioral Requirements Updates
	RSVP Multiple Instance Object
	SCTP NAT Support

2) The sense of the room in Honolulu was to adopt the following two
	drafts as WG drafts:

      DiffServ interconnection classes and practice
	draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/

      UDP Usage Guidelines
      draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/

      Absent objection on the list, these drafts will be adopted.
      Please comment by November 30.

3) The meeting determined that there is no WG rough consensus
      for requiring use of the full UDP checksum for GRE-in-UDP
      with IPv6.  The design team will continue work on when
      zero checksum is acceptable (as well as congestion
      considerations).

4) See the minutes for the lengthy and interesting discussion of the
      tunnel congestion feedback draft.  There is one important issue
	that needs to be followed up across the TSVWG and AQM WGs (aqm
      list cc:'d for this reason):

      OPEN ISSUE *1: Should ECN indications (CE) be treated as equivalent
      to drops?  This also came  up in AQM.  This is primarily about
      endpoint (or tunnel egress) reaction to CE.

Enjoy,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

[aqm] Draft Honolulu minutes posted Black, David