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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art