IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Weekly github digest (TSV Working Group GitHub Activity Summary)

Repository Activity Summary Bot <do_not_reply@mnot.net> Sun, 04 August 2024 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <do_not_reply@mnot.net>
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 66C9FC151534 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=mnot.net header.b="baJ6Z2aK"; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="dKHSdtVj"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxsUlIeuBVKn for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fout8-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout8-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.151]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6350C151989 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 00:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B8A138FC8A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:39:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 04 Aug 2024 03:39:40 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :content-type:content-type:date:from:from:in-reply-to :mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t= 1722757180; x=1722843580; bh=/5++IwVvjh2z6eWCE6ZEE3kqBL79fr77JdB 7pn7Ti+Q=; b=baJ6Z2aKsvT/r0OVmy2kOPsUcr97M1smUk4ruS5kezACwZ7ovmr ThgclChsCpldp2EOUzU+ScZn0vpHK9ydxwlPVTiSRlb8FkoUuXqKmwa7au9Biz8M DsfWUsiknFETXXNMQIQuahNFoRbsx5dUiBVmgOTYkVJMeDo14ZF2x/ib9rZNR30A VjIgyPHJWyHpmPbA84KxKdK+oxZ7uKCOUqGxpcvC2xbNV2plUZ/O+POfHQzYSwjV tGo7R6T0pHL5FFwe+7pwr6m0WTfLfpSnXcGxBKsxqW6K4dYcKd3zuPD4ZqxL6WUL /2MaNC066b6/20+k1AWtW5bEuoabGobWY+w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:mime-version :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1722757180; x= 1722843580; bh=/5++IwVvjh2z6eWCE6ZEE3kqBL79fr77JdB7pn7Ti+Q=; b=d KHSdtVjjaIjW7QAuJohSH1dT7dAxwkkYzsfppFMtOMaWbxawsNOcwgL/QReRzpYJ JQxtTLkQm16dz3kcl6hIjLit34aE25rCBbKhXPZkk2eQEQgzwE12+C65bKhaYqTZ HDXfD9j6oMTk9HxGv5Zp+s6HNrAfGbtvH0oTI/K/iQ47si6rWTG+b6gT/n9F/doS oHVbierGRqlxG5xwHdR24AxLcjTuMAeQGbCY34EEN/GnPCTX9Zrzijl8in1AlupA yEoFNz77A70Ddx5dq1nREcw204ntxkBMNE31Qif11hkt1bYsq+qZwQvw583zGJkU 0OOar1mMoeJ7/LrJyoMiw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PDCvZtZ5MYrXwdxkegMWMy7EscZ40PAdj6cRCwhRbz7sSpX_9H8OLA> <xme:PDCvZkZAxXevXoCHQX8XLRHeTPNCpFbUDwUoHQ9bRcQJBQrkaO9-tHdKLHQbCyuBu QB0ggvbylExEXgf0Q>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:PDCvZv-ZoyKRe0PQKACk2KZ5EqyOTnGTvGDgiB561BuLiQ5Cq75z7qPNTH2Dv0yAsUJjiNAYAV9DHUCnOwu9-IfDhydn-brj7Li7hMXP76zAzUxKIdCQQVBz6FmVRzycSCX39Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrkeefgdduvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucfpohcuuggrthgvuchfihgvlhguucdlgeelmdenuc fjughrpegtggfhvffusegrtddtredttdejnecuhfhrohhmpeftvghpohhsihhtohhrhicu tegtthhivhhithihucfuuhhmmhgrrhihuceuohhtuceoughopghnohhtpghrvghplhihse hmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeefvdduteejvdefkeehieevuefg fefhteetveegffekffefteffvdelheduieetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtg homhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegu ohgpnhhothgprhgvphhlhiesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PDCvZroX-xn4my1R3NTQ3lAewow7aqr71pBIH4yIhztSaW38HJJCuA> <xmx:PDCvZor69Q7VlqVXOvkddmE8bl7ASPY3uoy4ppFMV365Fmv-CuPGww> <xmx:PDCvZhRF8oGbrMrYu-pICDQgN8ZNu6uwB38463KUO8mgwmvGm0LiOg> <xmx:PDCvZgrzRHfn_6pYBnJ9iwY2ReKlfrnaNxEiSsKLleEqvog4lZs54g> <xmx:PDCvZv0ODl0n2RhojRFZs6Z-M19eOd--S8c6IQn9vXyD42UDydepegpR>
Feedback-ID: i1c3946f2:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============1685943582383873693=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Repository Activity Summary Bot <do_not_reply@mnot.net>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20240804075610.D6350C151989@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 00:56:10 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: GN5C7A5XEFKU5N5DA7EMPB43CQ6O3YTH
X-Message-ID-Hash: GN5C7A5XEFKU5N5DA7EMPB43CQ6O3YTH
X-MailFrom: do_not_reply@mnot.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] Weekly github digest (TSV Working Group GitHub Activity Summary)
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Gk27jJEXUuFBwaTx3HQfbeuAOiY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>



Issues
------
* tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp (+0/-0/šŸ’¬10)
  10 issues received 10 new comments:
  - #306 MP_MAXNUM_SUBFLOW (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/306 
  - #305 Comments and questions on different sections from AD review (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/305 
  - #304 How one should interpret the all capitalized "ALL"? (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/304 
  - #303 Confusion with PATH scope (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/303 
  - #302 What does "physically isolated path" mean? (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/302 
  - #301 Editorial suggestion - move the subflow definition up (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/301 
  - #300 confusion about tunneling or encapsulation of lower layeres  (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/300 
  - #299 MP-QUIC?? (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/299 
  - #298 Unclear intention with DCCP framework and header conversion  (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/298 
  - #297 Expired drafts in references (1 by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/issues/297 

* tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options (+4/-2/šŸ’¬63)
  4 issues created:
  - Clarification when allowing both default and extended length formats for options < 255 bytes (by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/62 
  - Sec 11.4 edit clarification on frag (by jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/61 
  - add pointer to UDP-ipfix (by jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/60 
  - Offlist query about capitalization  (by jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/59 

  24 issues received 63 new comments:
  - #61 Sec 11.4 edit clarification on frag (2 by jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/61 
  - #60 add pointer to UDP-ipfix (2 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/60 
  - #59 Offlist query about capitalization  (2 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/59 
  - #56 Erik: Inconsistency in Security Considerations regarding not passing FRAG, NOP, and EOL to the upper layer (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/56 [Editorial] [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #54 CMH:  Clarify the exact meaning of MRDS size (2 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/54 [Editorial] [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #52 MD/CMH: Change minimum reassembled UDP datagram size from 3000 to 2926 (9 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/52 [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #51 CMH: Clarification for FRAG Option Corner Cases (3 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/51 
  - #50 NiT (Erik):  Section 6 (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/50 [Editorial] [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #49 CMH: Clarify that EOL indicates the end the options in the per-fragment option area just as it does in the per-datagram surplus area  (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/49 [Editorial] [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #48 CMH: Instructions regarding placement of must-support options are overly prescriptive (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/48 
  - #47 CMH: Apply "first instance only" rule to options received in fragments as well as in the surplus area (1 by jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/47 
  - #46 CMH: Instructions on order of option processing (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/46 [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #45 WGLC: Is it OK for the endpoints to send information in UDP options which can be read (only) by the transit nodes and react to it? (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/45 
  - #44 Various: Commentry on options being opt-in (2 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/44 
  - #43 ZS/CMH: Backwards compatibility with UDP (12 by Mike-Heard, gorryfair, jtouch, zaheduzzaman)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/43 [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #42 GF/CMH/ZS: WGLC Comments - Use cases (2 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/42 
  - #41 Tom H: WGLC comments on Appendix A: (2 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/41 [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #37 Tom H: WGLC comments on Section  7: OCS (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/37 [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #36 Tom H: WGLC comments on Section 5 (2 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/36 
  - #35 Tom H: WGLC Additions to terminology in Section 3 (7 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/35 [Editorial] [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #34 Tom H: WGLC comments on design of APC and Auth (2 by jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/34 [question] 
  - #32 Med: WGLC Comments on Magic Number? (2 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/32 [Editorial] [Proposed text in issue] 
  - #30 Med: WGLC Comments on Frag (3 by Mike-Heard, jtouch)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/30 
  - #10 * Section 12: The inner if clauses in the pseudo-code seem to be   inconsistent (1 by Mike-Heard)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/10 [Expected resolved] 

  2 issues closed:
  - Erik: correct or remove erroneous note in Step 3 of the fragmentation procedure (Section 11.4) https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/57 [Proposed text in issue] 
  - Sec 11.4 edit clarification on frag https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/issues/61 



Pull requests
-------------
* tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp (+8/-0/šŸ’¬0)
  8 pull requests submitted:
  - s/DCCP reset/DCCP-Reset (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/314 
  - Added reference to Change L/R in RFC4340 (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/313 
  - Path scope refined (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/312 
  - Explained physically isolated paths (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/311 
  - Changed order of Subflow and Connection in Terminology section (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/310 
  - Elimination of level confusion (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/309 
  - Remove comparison with MP-QUIC (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/308 
  - Remove expired references to IETF draft documents (by markusa)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp/pull/307 

* tsvwg/careful-resume (+1/-0/šŸ’¬0)
  1 pull requests submitted:
  - Update draft-ietf-tsvwg-careful-resume.xml (by gorryfair)
    https://github.com/tsvwg/careful-resume/pull/51 


Repositories tracked by this digest:
-----------------------------------
* https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-udp-options-dplpmtud
* https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-multipath-dccp
* https://github.com/tsvwg/careful-resume
* https://github.com/tsvwg/zero-checksum
* https://github.com/tsvwg/ietf-l4sops
* https://github.com/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status