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 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____
>>     > 
>>
>