Re: [Int-area] [tsvwg] New draft to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN, etc. for ECN

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Carlos, (adding Lawrence & Uri as editors of VXLAN-GPE),

Thx for pointing this out.

I don't need to update a draft that isn't an RFC yet. The VXLAN-GPE 
draft should just refer to RFC6040 directly, which would correct the 
fact that ECN propagation was omitted from the original VXLAN 
implementation and spec.

Cheers


Bob

On 08/07/16 20:36, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> [correcting [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>
>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> On 08/07/16 15:50, Black, David wrote:
>>> VXLAN (RFC 7348) is an independent submission (ISE) RFC - it is not 
>>> updatable by the IETF.
>> Yeah, I realised that after I pressed submit (as I said).
>> I've removed VXLAN from the "Updates" header.
>> I will just have to treat VXLAN like I've treated GTP - cite it, and 
>> say we expect the <other forum> to refer to the present spec.
>>
>
> And VXLAN-GPE <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02>?
>
> Thanks,
>
> — Carlos.
>
>> I've updated my local copy, and I've mentioned Geneve and GUE, altho 
>> they already correctly refer to RFC6040, so no need to "update" them.
>> I might post an -01 draft before the deadline tonight. That didn't 
>> used to be possible when the deadlines were on different days, but I 
>> think it works now.
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>>
>>> Thanks, --David
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 8:12 AM
>>>> To: tsvwg IETF list; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
>>>> Wassim Haddad; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Gorry
>>>> Fairhurst; Black, David
>>>> Subject: New draft to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN, etc. for ECN
>>>>
>>>> tsvwg, intarea, and respective co-chairs,
>>>>
>>>> I have posted a new very brief draft (under 2 pages not incl.
>>>> boilerplate), intended for standards track as a bis to RFC6040.
>>>> As suggested in Buenos Aires, this has been extracted from
>>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines, to cut all the clutter and
>>>> highlight solely the standards track stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers
>>>> Separated by a Shim
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis-00
>>>>
>>>> If approved, it is intended to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN.
>>>> Obviously the IETF does not control GTP - see text for how 3GPP might
>>>> use this spec.
>>>> Simialrly, given VXLAN is informational, it's perhaps not 
>>>> appropriate to
>>>> update it - exactly how this is worded is for discussion.
>>>>
>>>> For IETF-96, I've asked for a slot in intarea to explain, and I also
>>>> hope to cover this in an ecn-encap-guidelines slot in tsvwg.
>>>>
>>>> I'd appreciate help identifying more tunnelling protocols that follow
>>>> the pattern of a shim sandwiched between two IP headers.
>>>> Since posting, I've looked at Joe's Tunnelling draft and realised I
>>>> missed out Geneve and GUE. More?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> On 08/07/16 12:41, [e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis-00.txt
>>>>> has been successfully submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the
>>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name:draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis
>>>>> Revision:00
>>>>> Title:Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel
>>>> Headers Separated by a Shim
>>>>> Document date:2016-07-08
>>>>> Group:Individual Submission
>>>>> Pages:5
>>>>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-
>>>> rfc6040bis-00.txt
>>>>> Status: 
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis/
>>>>> Htmlized: 
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis-00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>     RFC 6040 on "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification" 
>>>>> made the
>>>>>     rules for propagation of ECN consistent for all forms of IP in IP
>>>>>     tunnel.  This specification extends the scope of RFC 6040 to 
>>>>> include
>>>>>     tunnels where two IP headers are separated by a shim header that
>>>>>     cannot stand alone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>>>>> submission
>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
>>>>> tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> __
>>>> Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
>>
>> --
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/