Re: [tram] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gonzalo S,

what is your time plan for working on this?

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 22-Mar-19 20:43, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo - 
> 
> I apologize but this PMTUD draft has gotten little attention beyond outlining proposals for clearing some of the raised DISCUSSes.  This one has taken a back seat as we are actively prioritizing completion of the STUN draft before some AD’s step down.  I think we should have that one completed by Prague or very soon after and then we will work on this PMTUD draft.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 3:52 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gonzalo S,
>>
>> could you please give me a status update on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 19-Feb-19 20:13, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:
>>> Hi Gonzalo - 
>>>
>>> We have made a decision on the PADDING but are still working through some of the comments raised in DISCUSS.  We hope to have this finished after finalizing STUN, which should be very close.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gonzalo S,
>>>>
>>>> what is the current status of this?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>
>>>> On 18-Jan-19 20:12, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:
>>>>> Thanks, Spencer.  We will proceed with bringing the definition of
>>>>> PADDING into the current draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2019, at 9:25 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Gonzalo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:05 AM Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   What is the next step here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Gonzalo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On 13-Dec-18 16:27, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Simon, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 7:12 AM Simon Perreault
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>>   <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>>>>>>   <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - Pull the definition of PADDING into this document. Declare
>>>>>>   that
>>>>>>>     we've gathered sufficient experience with PADDING that it now
>>>>>>>     warrants being elevated to Standards Track. That is, it's been
>>>>>>>     proven to work.____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     This is plausible. It solves the first-order problem. ____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I note that RFC 5780 defined a number of new attributes. Is
>>>>>>   pulling
>>>>>>>     PADDING forward the right thing to do, or are there others that
>>>>>>>     would also qualify (so, perhaps a status change for RFC
>>>>>>   5780)? ____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I don’t think the others have been implemented much, so
>>>>>>   that’s why I
>>>>>>>     think only pulling PADDING makes sense. If I remember
>>>>>>   correctly, I
>>>>>>>     only implemented PADDING in Numb (I don’t have access to the
>>>>>>   source
>>>>>>>     code anymore so can’t be sure).____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Anyone else with an opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's helpful information. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should wait for anyone else with information to weigh in, but
>>>>>>   if it's
>>>>>>> correct that the other experimental attributes haven't been
>>>>>>   implemented
>>>>>>> and deployed in a way that would provide guidance for
>>>>>>   standards-track
>>>>>>> use, I think defining PADDING in this document makes more sense
>>>>>>   to me
>>>>>>> than adding a downref to an experimental RFC that we wouldn't
>>>>>>   consider
>>>>>>> if the reference was using anything except PADDING.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one has objected in the past month (which included holidays, but I
>>>>>> would have asked this question with a week or two timeout, if the
>>>>>> holidays had not been coming up). 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think bringing the definition of PADDING into the current draft is
>>>>>> the right thing to do. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If TRAM people thought that the other experimental attributes in RFC
>>>>>> 5780 don't have enough implementation experience to justify moving
>>>>>> them past Experimental status, changing the status of RFC 5780 to
>>>>>> Historic might be appropriate at some point, but that's not related to
>>>>>> the conversation we're having now, and I haven't asked a question
>>>>>> about that, so I'll ignore that for now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your help with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spencer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spencer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Simon____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>