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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

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).