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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Allison,

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Allison Mankin <[e-mail]>
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 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.
>
> AD not on vacation (Spencer), what do you think?
>

That works for me - and thank you, Joe, for providing the feedback so
quickly.

Spencer, as AD "on the clock"


> 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
>>
>>
>>
>