[pmtud] Request for publication of draft-ietf-pmtud-method-09.txt as a proposed standard
Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu> Fri, 01 September 2006 10:58 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJ6j0-0001bf-85; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:58:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJ6iy-0001bZ-Kk; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:58:12 -0400
Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([207.75.164.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJ6iy-0001OK-7a; Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:58:12 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0264C47D20; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 06:58:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32182-07; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 06:58:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C85947C7D; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 06:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <44F8123E.1070503@internet2.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:58:06 -0400
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c54bc2f42d02429833c0ca4b8725abd7
Cc: Matt Mathis <mathis@psc.edu>, pmtud@ietf.org, Matt Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>, John Heffner <jheffner@psc.edu>
Subject: [pmtud] Request for publication of draft-ietf-pmtud-method-09.txt as a proposed standard
X-BeenThere: pmtud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery <pmtud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud>, <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pmtud>
List-Post: <mailto:pmtud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud>, <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pmtud-bounces@ietf.org
The Path MTU Discovery WG requests publication of draft-ietf-pmtud-method-09.txt, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery", as a proposed standard. Below is the questionnaire and protocol writeup requested as part of the "PROTO" process. [Interested group members can reference draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt for details on the document shepherding process.] --Matt Zekauskas, PMTUD co-chair -=-=-=- Shepherd Note for draft-ietf-pmtud-method-09.txt "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" Shepherd: Matt Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu> QUESTIONNAIRE: 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes. Note that the other chair is an author. 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had considerable review by the working group over its eight revisions, and the comments have been incorporated in the current draft. Reviewers have had background in TCP, SCTP, DCCP, the use of tunnels (ipsec and other) and IPv6. The current version has had four careful reviews that only revealed nits, and are fixed in this version. I have no concern about the depth or breadth of reviews. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No. 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I believe the working group as a whole understands and agrees with it. There are a few vocal proponents, but it has had wide review and discussion within the working group, both on the list and at working group meetings. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No. 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Yes. 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Yes. Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) No. 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: * Technical Summary * Working Group Summary * Protocol Quality 1.j) Please provide such a write-up. Recent examples can be found in the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents. [[1.k (explanation of the writeup) elided for brevity]] PROTOCOL WRITEUP: Technical Summary: This document describes a robust method for Path MTU Discovery ("Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" or PLPMTUD) that relies on TCP or some other Packetization Layer to probe an Internet path with progressively larger packets. This method is described as an extension to RFC 1191 and RFC 1981, which specify ICMP based Path MTU Discovery for IP versions 4 and 6, respectively. The general strategy of the new algorithm is to start with a small MTU and search upward, testing successively larger MTUs by probing with single packets. If a probe is successfully delivered then the MTU can be raised. If the probe is lost, it is treated as an MTU limitation and not as a congestion signal. PLPMTUD introduces some flexibility in the implementation of classical Path MTU discovery. If can be configured to perform just ICMP black hole recovery to increase the robustness of classical Path MTU Discovery, or at the other extreme, all ICMP processing can be disabled and PLPMTUD can completely replace classical Path MTU Discovery. Working Group Summary: The working group feels that an update to path MTU discovery is needed to rectify problems with current "classical" path MTU discovery that occur in today's network deployments (which result in Path MTU "black holes", and the failure of not only the algorithm but often the entire connection). The document has had considerable review by the working group over its eight revisions, and the comments have been incorporated in the current draft. Reviewers have had background in TCP, SCTP, DCCP, the use of tunnels (ipsec and other) and IPv6. The WGLC version has had four careful reviews that only revealed nits and clarifications that are fixed in this version. Protocol Quality: The current protocol has one implementation in Linux, by a co-author, and another independent implementation in a user-space transport protocol. Previous versions have had implementation in Linux, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, by different people, resulting in comments that contributed to document changes. Other operating systems vendors and tunnel vendors have reviewed the document. _______________________________________________ pmtud mailing list pmtud@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud
- [pmtud] Request for publication of draft-ietf-pmtā¦ Matthew J Zekauskas