IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Draft agenda uploaded

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 07 March 2018 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9A61274D2 for <tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:40:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.net
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 zXRQQ40mi2Pn for <tsv-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E89761200C1 for <tsv-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:40:16 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=CZHQ+vyxZ++3OyxddqUnpW+h0O52un4QIcDTZsv42Z6x8rVxkcF3bBsr4s2poMw1D+JO14EXDNJtWCbuwrucHLTFtC0nGDCFlgqdUPfYQ3pzSaHhm++kKWZuW6W9hsDKlcFTpiwcAA/L/THaFHAzMj3Omds2Hio+yrPz/wMV5JA=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 16558 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2018 18:39:13 +0100
Received: from i577bce46.versanet.de (HELO ?192.168.133.28?) (87.123.206.70) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 7 Mar 2018 18:39:13 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Subject: Re: Draft agenda uploaded
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <807EBF47-E13A-4C8C-98F2-C3BEABDFD0EF@strayalpha.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 18:39:12 +0100
Cc: "tsv-area@ietf.org >> tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6EF72E7C-DF02-4877-90B3-88936307DF58@kuehlewind.net>
References: <9C1CE14F-46B8-4578-A0AA-8560B3F66635@kuehlewind.net> <CALx6S37nKN4amWYj1_QYq9nZjc1oBLt8cBP1z03SYMd+XE12Nw@mail.gmail.com> <3CAAE05C-1B86-4EC4-83E6-B407A7D31C2E@kuehlewind.net> <807EBF47-E13A-4C8C-98F2-C3BEABDFD0EF@strayalpha.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20180307173913.16553.46443@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/MRlzfjjYl0YwDY5OZsVf5yBJtzY>
X-BeenThere: tsv-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Transport and Services Area Mailing List <tsv-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-area>, <mailto:tsv-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 17:40:19 -0000

I guess in many cases the concern is simply that UDP is more often block than TCP…


> Am 07.03.2018 um 18:31 schrieb Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>:
> 
> Fwiw, ick. I am hoping the pending UDP options  and their frag support while allowing frag traversal of NATs will help discourage use of TCP this way. 
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Tom,
>> 
>> no, this is more a topic that we as the AD would like to discuss with the community as we see more and more work that adds TCP encapsulation to all kind of protocols for middlebox traversal issues. 
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>>> Am 07.03.2018 um 17:56 schrieb Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2018 8:16 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> we plan to have a short (1h) TSV area meeting in London and are scheduled for
>>> 
>>> tsvarea Session 1 (1:00:00)
>>>  Monday, Afternoon Session III 1740-1840
>>>  Room Name: Sandringham size: 300
>>> 
>>> We just uploaded the planned agenda:
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-tsvarea
>>> 
>>> Besides the usual updates and status report, we are planning for a discussion about TCP encapsulation with a corresponding presentation about experience with TCP encapsulation for IKE.
>>> 
>>> Mirja,
>>> 
>>> Is there a draft or RFC for TCP encapsulation that is being discussed?
>>> 
>>> Tom
>>> 
>>> 
>>> See you all in London!
>>> 
>>> Mirja and Spencer
>>> 
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email