Re: [Int-area] Responses to feedback on GUE presentation from IETF #103

"Templin (US), Fred L" <> Wed, 28 November 2018 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618E612F1AB for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:46:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYfbEcaPOf0r for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38E6A128A6E for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id wASLk7t5009043; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:46:07 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id wASLk3E5009020 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 28 Nov 2018 16:46:03 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1466.3; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:46:02 -0800
Received: from ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:46:02 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
To: Tom Herbert <>, int-area <>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Responses to feedback on GUE presentation from IETF #103
Thread-Index: AQHUh13dscmhibsMOk6BrqMgcshKHKVluBLA
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:46:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: 97D92327B000822C643B6CD75DDFD4CEB4ED0B1C7BBE312C2214FC412135006C2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Responses to feedback on GUE presentation from IETF #103
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:46:11 -0000

As both an individual contributor and document shepherd, I concur with Tom's
responses. There is at least one mature implementation which I use all the time,
and accordingly would like to see the standards move forward.

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-area [] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 1:03 PM
> To: int-area <>
> Subject: [Int-area] Responses to feedback on GUE presentation from IETF #103
> Please see my response below maked TH.
> Thanks,
> Tom
> -----------------------
> ** TH's video link dropped shortly into the presentation and wasn't
> completed or able to respond to the comments **
> CF: As TSVWG chair I didn't get why it was being proposed. TSVWG is in
> the title and this is what TSVWG does. Please talk to us about it.
> TH: That is in reference to draft-herbert-tsvwg-gte-00. My intent on
> presenting it was to inform about this potential work, not to propose
> it in int-area.
> SK: I think we did is say this was a 1 off document. Now there's 4. If
> it becomes a protocol suite, it doesn't below here. If TSVWG wants to
> take it....
> TH: From the beginning there were actually two documents. The main GUE
> draft and GUE extensions. A major tenant of GUE is that it is
> extensible. But, aside from the initial set of extensions (and initial
> control messages) I would not foresee that things will be added a high
> rate; my estimate is maybe one extension every few years. The control
> messages draft is under development and not ready to be WG item yet.
> CF: I wanted to comment on it!
> Whether we need another encap protocol. We need a BOF etc.
> TH: I believe that draft-herbert-tsvwg-gte might ultimately be part of
> a more general efforts of how to use tunnels with transport layer
> semantics. There was a side meeting on this as LOOPS (localized
> optimization of path segment), and hopefully we can get a mailing list
> for discussion on the topic.
> SK: If there's a significant amount of work, we need a BOF. this is
> not the right place for it
> We can talk off line.
> TH: I don't believe GUE is a significant amount of work. AFAIK, there
> is no pending work to be done on GUE drafts (the two in WGLC). As I
> mentioned we have a Document Shepherd for one draft
> (draft-ietf-intarea-gue), but are still hoping to get one assigned to
> the other (draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions).
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list