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

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

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