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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Nevermind - found the appropriate WG for the capwap stuff.

Joe


On 9/26/2016 2:02 PM, Joe Touch 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]
>> <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>
>>