Re: [Tsv-art] ACTION NEEDED: TSV reviewers for IETF LC/near-LC documents as of 9/26

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 9/26/2016 12:05 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I don't think more is needed for the drafts than these comments
> (they're fresh in my mind).
>
> Please do send a TSV ART Last Call review with the comment about
> capwap to that group?
The email group appears to be gone - I just tried to subscribe here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/capwap/charter/

>
> The comment about 6lo-dect-ule could be sent as a TSV ART early review
> - we don't have a format for this (yet) but I think it's fine to just
> use the TSV ART early review in subject line and ask them to address
> the comment in their revisions prior to or during IETF LC.
Will do. Should I also send one about the doc with no issues?

Joe

>
> AD not on vacation (Spencer), what do you think?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> On 26 September 2016 at 14:38, Joe Touch <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi, all,
>
>     I'd like to provide some targeted feedback, if useful, on tunnel
>     and MTU issues noted below, in light of the INTAREA tunnels
>     document I've been working on.  I'm not sure any of these three
>     documents needs more of a transport review than this. If useful,
>     let me know and I can forward to each group separately.
>
>     Joe
>
>     ----
>
>     tunnel:
>
>     draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08 - this doc refers off to
>     existing tunneling specifications, many of which are inconsistent
>     or incorrect (i.e., they violate requirements at the IP layer), as
>     already noted in draft-intarea-tunnels. It would be useful for
>     this protocol to include signalling to indicate the receiver
>     payload reassembly limit when indicating support for each tunnel
>     type, to assist the source in determining whether the resulting
>     tunnel will be IPv6 compliant (rather than becoming a black hole
>     for valid packet sizes). Additionally, for the transport
>     protocol-based tunnels, it would be useful to indicate not only
>     the endpoint IP address but the port number as well. Finally, it
>     might be useful to consider IPsec TLS, and DTLS tunnels as well as
>     those already listed.
>
>     ----
>
>     MTU:
>
>     draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05.txt - the protocol supports1280-1500B
>     payloads without fragmentation and uses its own link header; as a
>     result, this is sufficient for IPv6 and there should be no new
>     interaction with TCP or other transports.
>
>     ----
>
>
>     draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05.txt- Sec 2.4 indicates that the default
>     MTU for DECT UL is 500 octets and does note that:
>
>        ...In order to
>        support complete IP packets, the DLC layer of DECT ULE SHALL per this
>        specification be configured with a MTU size that fits the
>        requirements from IPv6 data packets, hence [RFC4944 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944>] fragmentation/
>        reassembly is not required.
>
>     IMO, this text should he changed to be more clear about this
>     referring to IPv6 only (as per the title of the doc), to indicate
>     the minimum MTU, and to explain the reference to RFC4944:
>
>         ...In order to support IPv6, the DLC layer of DECT ULE MUST be
>         configured with a MTU of at least 1280B to avoid the need for
>         an RFC4944-style shim layer for additional support for larger
>         payload fragmentation/reassembly."
>
>     ----
>
>
>     On 9/26/2016 11:06 AM, Allison Mankin wrote:
>>     Dear TSV ART-isans,
>>
>>     I reviewed all documents that are in IETF LC and LC Requested as
>>     of 9/26.  I also looked at AD Review state as a proxy for
>>     documents that recently passed through WGLC.  Please find below
>>     all documents that I believe need TSV review attention.  Your
>>     Action Needed is to volunteer to write a tsv-art review for one
>>     or more of these.
>>
>>     The reason we've added some documents to get earlier reviews to
>>     increase the regularity of reviews being asked of you in the
>>     tsv-art (and, also, earlier review is good).  Currently we count
>>     on you to volunteer, rather than trying to dispatch assignments. 
>>     Perhaps seeing documents earlier will help you to consistently
>>     offer 1-2 reviews per month to support Spencer and Mirja.
>>
>>     If you agree that a document needs review by someone of your
>>     expertise, but you are too busy, we'll be very happy for you to
>>     identify and ask another person with your expertise to do the
>>     review.  Just let us know by cc'ing [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>.  This will also help us to expand
>>     the tsv-art.
>>
>>     In the document lists, if a date is present, it signifies the end
>>     of the IETF LC.  To help you decide to review, I've included a
>>     quick cut at the TSV topic needing attention (in brackets), but
>>     don't consider these hints to be comprehensive.
>>
>>     _Documents that require TSV attention_
>>     Last Calls
>>     - draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09[congestion/rate control]
>>     - 9/28
>>     - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08 [tunneling] - 9/30
>>     - draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13.txt [ECN] - 10/10
>>     AD Review
>>     - draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05.txt [MTU]
>>     - draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-05.txt [MTU]
>>     - draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-04 [receiver-based flow control
>>     over TCP?]
>>     - draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07.txt [updated tsv
>>     requirements]
>>
>>
>>     _Documents that may require TSV attention_
>>     AD Review
>>     - draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-16.txt [link-level rxt]
>>     - draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-06.txt
>>     [advertising link discrete variable bws]
>>     - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-24.txt [dynamic link exchange carried by TCP]
>>     - draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-09.txt [https-level reliability to
>>     devices]
>>
>>
>>     _Documents that do not require TSV attention_
>>     Last Call
>>     - draft-ietf-cose-msg-18
>>     - draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-04
>>     - draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-06 [TSV doc]
>>     - draft-ietf-ipsecme-safe-curves-04
>>     - draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-07
>>     - draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15
>>     - draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01
>>     - draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-12
>>     - draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05.txt
>>     - draft-levine-herkula-oneclick-06.txt
>>     - draft-murchison-nntp-compress-05.txt
>>     - draft-weis-gdoi-iec62351-9-08.txt
>>     AD Review
>>     - draft-adid-urn-00.txt
>>     - draft-holmberg-dispatch-mcptt-rp-namespace-02.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-12.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-behave-syslog-nat-logging-06 [TSV doc]
>>     - draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-15.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-11.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-p2psip-share-08.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-payload-rtp-ancillary-05.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-04.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch-01.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-savi-mix-11.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-sfc-control-plane-07.txt
>>     - draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-18.txt
>>     - draft-sparks-genarea-interim-management-00.txt
>>     - draft-sparks-genarea-manualpost-tracking-00.txt
>>     - draft-spinosa-urn-lex-09.txt
>>
>>     Regards,
>>
>>       Allison (on Triage duty)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tsv-art mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>
>