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

["Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>]

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____
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>