Re: [tsvwg] New Version draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> opsawg would like to last call draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim as well (altho I have now realized that no update to CAPWAP is needed,
> but opsawg is now working on alternative tunnelling protocols to CAPWAP: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel ). I guess int-area might want
> to last call draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim too.

We can certainly announce the tsvwg WGLC to those two WGs in order to invite reviews and comments.

Thanks, --David

From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 10:48 AM
To: Black, David <[e-mail]>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Version draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02

David, as doc shepherd.

I have just posted a major revision to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim

Please also take this as a request to give a 10min presentation in tsvwg.

As requested, I included specific text necessary to update certain shim tunnel protocols that didn't mention ECN at all (L2TPv2, L2TPv3, GRE).
There are two others to do:
* Teredo: I'll do this once I hear from the original author, Christian Huitema
* VXLAN-GPE: This is a draft currently going through NVO3 on the standards track. AFAIK the Linux implementation already supports ECN via RFC6040, but the authors will need to add ECN text to the spec, so there is something for other implementations to follow. I have contacted them - they should do this, not me.

I have also added more protocols to the list (e.g. CAPWAP, LISP), but these already supported ECN.

As you have seen, I have been in conversation with people on the l2tpext list, and on opsawg (for CAPWAP). I haven't found anyone specific to talk to regarding GRE yet, but I have notified int-area and I gave a heads-up at a recent IETF.


BTW, your plan was to last call draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim along with ecn-encap-guidelines, deadline Sep 2017.
I should point out that draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support is in WGLC in trill, and it depends normatively on ecn-encap-guidelines

opsawg would like to last call draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim as well (altho I have now realized that no update to CAPWAP is needed, but opsawg is now working on alternative tunnelling protocols to CAPWAP: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel ). I guess int-area might want to last call draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim too.



Bob


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

New Version Notification for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02.txt

Date:

Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:14:46 -0700

From:

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To:

Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>



A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02.txt

has been successfully submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the

IETF repository.



Name:         draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim

Revision:     02

Title:        Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim

Document date: 2017-06-16

Group:        tsvwg

Pages:        15

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02.txt

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim/

Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02

Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02

Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-02



Abstract:

   RFC 6040 on "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification" made the

   rules for propagation of ECN consistent for all forms of IP in IP

   tunnel.  This specification extends the scope of RFC 6040 to include

   tunnels where two IP headers are separated by at least one shim

   header that is not sufficient on its own for packet forwarding.  It

   surveys widely deployed IP tunnelling protocols separated by a shim

   and updates the specifications of those that do not mention ECN

   propagation (L2TPv2, L2TPv3, GRE and Teredo).  The specification also

   updates RFC 6040 with configuration requirements needed to make any

   legacy tunnel ingress safe.









Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission

until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.



The IETF Secretariat