[tsvwg] Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe considered to be adopted by tsvwg?
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mon, 30 August 2021 18:24 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD1D3A1CE8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 11:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V8xpCfr2Pya0 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 11:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447F33A1CE9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GF-MBP-2.lan (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D92D1B001B7; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:23:43 +0100 (BST)
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Cc: "tom.jones@abdn.ac.uk" <tom.jones@abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <7e3e6985-9f5e-de1b-da1e-15bb468fdbdc@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:23:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/07FkilVPsqlz_LB-_ewDMnedUPE>
Subject: [tsvwg] Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe considered to be adopted by tsvwg?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 18:24:25 -0000
We submitted revision -05 of draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud a couple of weeks ago. This, like the last rev, was mainly to tidy NiTs. The protocol spec has not changed. The authors are now asking if this can be adopted to progress with UDP Options through to RFC publication. We've asked for this to be added to the Agenda for the next Interim, and thoughts from the WG on-list or at that meeting will be most welcome! Best wishes, Tom & Gorry (as individual document authors).
- [tsvwg] Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe considered… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe consid… C. M. Heard
- [tsvwg] Fwd: Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe consi… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe c… Tom Jones
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe c… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe c… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: Can DPLPMTUD for UDP Optionsbe c… Tom Jones