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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Yup - all three done.

Joe


On 9/26/2016 2:47 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
> 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] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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/
>     <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>
>>