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 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[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____
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>