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

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

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____
>>>>  
>>> 
>>