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

"Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0276120160; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=YYLrYBNI; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=mEMu11OL
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U7CbNCjW-Yur; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4E0D120049; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7488; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554739121; x=1555948721; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=LViyE7W4mXeXlxIlVruS6BaFabO9Z2Kfdz18tj5Ybwg=; b=YYLrYBNInt84wW+yjPrfsERKF1vSpBLXdyOeXXf6lwZkvkO58DonQvsd B7+V7Zsu5l1DPRCarv6N735RqmqASZwTC2iZJxOG/ybV9XhYFOp1BMzKl Tg9oxg/pjqvDLc21bJ3SeGrrtGNTiLhG4S+O5RhNs+WONPRBm3UyXBrtu k=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AvgsgSBO0NRceuQWqHOol6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEu6w/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETB?= =?us-ascii?q?oZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBj0N/fuYDE3HexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AjAgA7b6tc/5xdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBZYE+KScDgTwgBAsnhA6DRwOPKIJXiTiNYIJSA1QOAQEshEA?= =?us-ascii?q?CF4VOIjgSAQEDAQEJAQIBAm0cDIVKAQEBAwEjEQwBATcBBAsCAQgYAgIjAwI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAh8RFAEQAgQOBYMigV4DDQgBoy0CihRxgS+CeQEBBYR6DQuCDAiBCyWLRxe?= =?us-ascii?q?BQD+BEScfgkw+ghqCKjgCglAxgiaHbYUpmD02CQKMH4NYRoNEGoIFhhaMQYx?= =?us-ascii?q?thkyJW4I9AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFmIYFWcBVlAYJBggo3bQEGgkSKU3KBKI9FAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,325,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="459614028"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 08 Apr 2019 15:58:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x38FwJrh023790 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:58:19 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:58:19 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:58:17 -0500
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:58:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=LViyE7W4mXeXlxIlVruS6BaFabO9Z2Kfdz18tj5Ybwg=; b=mEMu11OL5oeRWEf1YcgmC/V0UuSDYm73KPg6+0PmTp/Mb3VO+uQQelJB6jXyy78IrLZks1/i18GxXQbMKox4oHciQSaoAFCuh+XIBOBQwwJ8eVKI+h1qfHqwmE/hUZlMDTuI2v5tKvtsqx9wysxX7SMsh2nSV4/fCDB0t1K3b3E=
Received: from BY5PR11MB3895.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.72.92) by BY5PR11MB4022.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.161.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.16; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:58:15 +0000
Received: from BY5PR11MB3895.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ce5:bf39:3408:19cb]) by BY5PR11MB3895.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::ce5:bf39:3408:19cb%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.016; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:58:15 +0000
From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
CC: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "tram-chairs@ietf.org" <tram-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tram] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUkuV9WRgg08P2B0upj6+dKkdDsqYzIfWA
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:58:15 +0000
Message-ID: <168002DC-813F-4F65-917E-0D990216D7B3@cisco.com>
References: <153834237082.13405.1228259718885034461.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-fouMOJa+eGUwEmQL+Uv5Fqe5KNM_fC0YxmhYojpFNzaA@mail.gmail.com> <CA447D15-2E65-4340-9FF5-4700A53335ED@logmein.com> <CAKKJt-cG=R5ide_qHx5hNKbYwxhDKmwk0tOQutNPYBJp8L7HUA@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR15MB1200F7BE766A80509FBFBE75FAA00@MWHPR15MB1200.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-eXBSJQeKkvNDhhFrpoOkwZvO=GYsZshh6=50htiHKnGw@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR07MB61277B1650EE2008D81F0F4E83800@VI1PR07MB6127.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-ewHuocx7nfohdr0+7V2XDmFxTWOVXLffmKAd_QoOpdmA@mail.gmail.com> <2EE82D0D-5024-4C71-8F25-0506D5530814@cisco.com> <VI1PR07MB5421C9288884AE5513D64A5083630@VI1PR07MB5421.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <E6DA48D1-A520-4AEE-842C-19F059921E32@cisco.com> <487146f2-f343-3c56-aeca-2e3fcfe54675@ericsson.com> <5A81A440-4ABF-4818-A1AE-83F5EF78D0EF@cisco.com> <HE1PR0702MB3689CBA26E11064001B01227832C0@HE1PR0702MB3689.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0702MB3689CBA26E11064001B01227832C0@HE1PR0702MB3689.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=gsalguei@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:2280:1330:8cf1:35a:7fa8:3e18]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fca7050f-9605-48c8-5a3f-08d6bc3b030d
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BY5PR11MB4022;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR11MB4022:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY5PR11MB4022615B3E151FF3328C3806C72C0@BY5PR11MB4022.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0001227049
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(40764003)(45074003)(54906003)(8676002)(76176011)(186003)(105586002)(81156014)(53936002)(68736007)(11346002)(486006)(316002)(33656002)(6916009)(446003)(6246003)(106356001)(2616005)(6512007)(99286004)(7736002)(86362001)(93886005)(14454004)(81166006)(476003)(478600001)(8936002)(82746002)(4326008)(46003)(6436002)(83716004)(71200400001)(71190400001)(2906002)(229853002)(305945005)(36756003)(5660300002)(6116002)(97736004)(25786009)(53546011)(14444005)(102836004)(6486002)(256004)(6506007)(69594002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY5PR11MB4022; H:BY5PR11MB3895.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Rn8nV5BoTfiNqh4CcQjDImXGPXxwZbFnkxS/RogUzZpBORh709tR92baj87yLOmqQK0BM14IgzENZ5K/h2maK6G1q4L+if0MsEFzF3Ry2R5crK8JviItbx1FOSBI+3Npn1wM4ydrJm3thbOJDSxsAO0mbnMDO+4UJm1Iq/gN3MAv+f+3UOPusYLEw89ZT7BJUQS6JDk+hF87/UiW9pOeAMskBJaqQ4hRsd+0pcRNB7Wyb6vzdnIF6YixZo/EnzN5TJsFD3WEnv/a7wCnofbDBGczzSuqu3YQDwS3qkmkisEoJpiVMdTNyfKhQOChx9kT8FPOqWMZRQERS+Wnhh7Lwg5pCUChBI2ivUPPFooLX8MD0efnN8Cyf2Q0t++zqFu38vm+EhUPU4MXAexrcCWB1Li671oQy9bS9p+kqbjEVk4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B40CF4D2861C8F42A53D66294BD94FC0@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fca7050f-9605-48c8-5a3f-08d6bc3b030d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Apr 2019 15:58:15.8041 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR11MB4022
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/lnXNM9JBYHxngw_1wUqRtiEF7aQ>
Subject: Re: [tram] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 15:58:44 -0000

Hi Gonzalo - 

We have already started going through the DISCUSS points with the new editor and emails should be forthcoming this week.

Thanks,

Gonzalo


> On Apr 8, 2019, at 6:37 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> 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 <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> 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
>>>>>>> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi, Gonzalo,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:05 AM Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>>>>> <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>> 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
>>>>>>>> <Simon.Perreault@logmein.com
>>>>>>>  <mailto:Simon.Perreault@logmein.com> <mailto:Simon.Perreault@logmein.com
>>>>>>>  <mailto:Simon.Perreault@logmein.com>>> 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____
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>