Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-14

Tom Jones <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mon, 24 February 2020 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@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 8CC2D3A0DBE; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:37:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ULjcfm46wxm5; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3FA3A0D7F; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:37:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from auth1-smtp.messagingengine.com (auth1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.227]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 809A91B00238; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:37:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D6420F51; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:37:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:37:43 -0500
X-ME-Sender: <xms:x-1TXnctkP7crfsmNpr1_dx7wtIS1eNoJdatTIwqC-VloPREYpsb0g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrledtgdejkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggugfgjsehtkeertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvohhmucfl ohhnvghsuceothhomhesvghrghdrrggsughnrdgrtgdruhhkqeenucfkphepudefjedrhe dtrddujedruddvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhf rhhomhepshhomhgvodhmvghsmhhtphgruhhthhhpvghrshhonhgrlhhithihqdegheeghe dtudejtddqudehheegvdegheekqdhtohhmpeepvghrghdrrggsughnrdgrtgdruhhksehf rghsthhmrghilhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:x-1TXovYAqsv3DDMqBJ-hc3V8mCTL_ZmAf0IEU7FPiLJ4WyaHP0nwA> <xmx:x-1TXm8_iA6g3XIaznhsQkSDzq93aI14RDbmddieF_WlkoBkCxTm6Q> <xmx:x-1TXj15aoqze-IsXlS0atdvaRgfDuclQfwcDFeNa53QevRtLk68FQ> <xmx:x-1TXqnv9Lso7ANXNnPyOk8ukkV2Yl4eN9Y5Ss5IR_pHjUgB8-O1ag>
Received: from tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk (tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.17.12]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AE74C3280059; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:37:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:36:49 +0000
From: Tom Jones <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: "Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de" <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200224153649.GA73021@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <DB7PR07MB457216F12169947827F7EAC495160@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <96077A9C-DBB1-4490-B84D-BB88CE46032F@lurchi.franken.de> <3228a40c9981be5c5625f6dab1937750532df787.camel@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3228a40c9981be5c5625f6dab1937750532df787.camel@ericsson.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/BOOWIxd4xbAK23Js4tbBK9WHSFc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-14
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, 24 Feb 2020 15:38:02 -0000

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:40:27PM +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Lets give others a few days to react to this. If no one has protested by next
> week, please submit an updated draft that includes the updates and the necessary
> description in abstract and introduction of these updates. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus

Hi Magnus,

We have posted a new rev that adds the updates lines and fixes the
reference to the quic draft (-27!)

- Tom

> On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 15:13 +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > > On 17. Feb 2020, at 14:44, Magnus Westerlund <
> > > magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > >  
> > > I have done my AD review by going through the AD Review checklist and
> > > looking at the changes since my WG LC review. Issues that I have found this
> > > time are the following.
> > >  
> > > 1. Missing Updates: So this documents respecifies how one perform PLPMTUD
> > > for SCTP over different lower layers. Despite that only RFC 4960 is updated.
> > > Looking at Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 I think there is a point of actually
> > > updating also RFC 6951 and RFC 8261. Both have their own specifications for
> > > Path MTU D and do not rely solely on either 4960 or RFC 4821. Thus, I think
> > > it would be good to update also these documents. Or what is the authors and
> > > WG’s view on this? 
> > 
> > I agree, it makes sense to update 6951 and 8261, too. A change in the SCTP
> > will also affect SCTP/UDP and SCTP/DTLS.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> > >  
> > > 2. Can you please update the revision of the QUIC transport reference:
> > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-25) exists of
> > >      draft-ietf-quic-transport-20
> > >  
> > > Otherwise I believe this document ready for IETF last call. I put the
> > > datatracker into revised ID needed based on 1.