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

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 [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 1:03 PM
> To: int-area <int-area@ietf.org>
> 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
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area