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

[Allison Mankin <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Joe:

Great that you found the WG for capwap.  Sure, send the one about finding
no issues too.  Again, thanks for the rapid response.

All:

We need two more rapid responders for the documents in Last Call, and then
takers for the early review items that are further down the list.   Feel
free to suggest someone else, or request a review from someone else, cc'ing
[e-mail]

David Black: B2BUA document that includes specific ECN handling?

Bernard Aboba: IPSECME DDoS avoidance?

-----------------
???  - draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09 [congestion/rate control] -
9/28
JOE - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08 [tunneling] - 9/30
??? - draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13.txt [ECN] - 10/10
-----------------

P.S. The Triage team and ADs have agreed to do an update of the TSV-Art
Wiki soon




On 26 September 2016 at 17:02, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ​
>
>
> 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]> 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].  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 [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
>>
>>