Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG Status Summary - 15 June 2019

"Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <jerhenry@cisco.com> Tue, 18 June 2019 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jerhenry@cisco.com>
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 979D3120336 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=SczgdpHZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=RmoGEzUg
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 uBlHdjfU4z3C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A7A6120179 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=23344; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1560816831; x=1562026431; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=BDPtsw46cFgo6yiOyk7UnmNqHTSoD8tjO369JQCy7Uc=; b=SczgdpHZeXacRZCK548DpRiZFNh30dT8iP0poTcTyUnOH7JXmHa5zID0 DHGJJ1xg8ze4pS7fN14e8az/lNHEu04aO7luHHuHlSOAK5T9uRrNVdD+R a0ss1eQ4c4T2MVrG6nRT7gVWwcR4GRT4l3zVavKQyF888F4cnsbCFPjQO E=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AK0N2ShO9pQGs+Q5g+UEl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEu6w/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETB?= =?us-ascii?q?oZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBj5IeTqYiogDexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AJAAAgLAhd/4kNJK1mDgwBAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBBwIBAQEBgVEFAQEBAQsBgT1QA2pVIAQLKAqEDINHA4RSihKDVZY4gS4?= =?us-ascii?q?UgRADVAkBAQEMAQEjCgIBAYRAAheCNSM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwBC4VLAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?SCwYRDAEBLAQHAQ8CAQgaAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FCRmDAAGBagMdAQIMnggCgTi?= =?us-ascii?q?IX3GBMYJ5AQEFgkeCNxiCEAmBDCgBhHCGTx4XgUA/gRABJx+CFwcuPoEEgVI?= =?us-ascii?q?LAgGBJTsXgnMygiaLcIJLjT6NZgkCghCTUhuCJ4cDhAqIMYFLhA2JEIEskka?= =?us-ascii?q?CcQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUDg3gSFwFTsqAYJBCYIGGINYhRSFBDtyAYEojhMBgSA?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,386,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="489348494"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Jun 2019 00:13:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (xch-aln-006.cisco.com [173.36.7.16]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x5I0DnP2008338 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:13:49 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (173.36.7.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 19:13:49 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 19:13:48 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 19:13:48 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=BDPtsw46cFgo6yiOyk7UnmNqHTSoD8tjO369JQCy7Uc=; b=RmoGEzUgbpmCMJVGIK0XmVR964fY++3MSAeY37J0ARjr/ENOlA1UN1TGzhXMDvWQB3sZkTiehc5JcCFtnl/P5rkJ1HxqBLnjHugtgKb42OsG8RJJsnda6x7R5JGfQl6JqrxGT60VS2ccZs0aHK8czwi+Se6rIWcWGh0Ns4F6b10=
Received: from BN8PR11MB3745.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.221.22) by BN8PR11MB3635.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.219.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.12; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:13:46 +0000
Received: from BN8PR11MB3745.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c116:76c9:a6f2:3b72]) by BN8PR11MB3745.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c116:76c9:a6f2:3b72%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.014; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:13:46 +0000
From: "Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <jerhenry@cisco.com>
To: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
CC: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "Tim Szigeti (szigeti)" <szigeti@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] TSVWG Status Summary - 15 June 2019
Thread-Index: AQHVI095d2Q0CK0smECa8T1WWkfAD6agS7WA
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:13:46 +0000
Message-ID: <B0CF557F-28D2-41DE-9F20-30872784D3FC@cisco.com>
References: <5D04A3E2.8030109@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5D04A3E2.8030109@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jerhenry@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.83]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6f04e0a6-944c-4216-c3fe-08d6f381d4f4
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN8PR11MB3635;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN8PR11MB3635:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN8PR11MB36351CB5938D0A011F6C2E84D5EA0@BN8PR11MB3635.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 007271867D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(346002)(67374002)(189003)(199004)(66066001)(76176011)(14454004)(11346002)(478600001)(2616005)(81166006)(81156014)(6916009)(68736007)(54906003)(8676002)(1730700003)(99286004)(296002)(316002)(86362001)(2351001)(25786009)(30864003)(4326008)(229853002)(66446008)(107886003)(64756008)(6486002)(66946007)(66476007)(3846002)(8936002)(6116002)(66556008)(91956017)(73956011)(305945005)(7736002)(53946003)(36756003)(33656002)(2906002)(102836004)(6506007)(71190400001)(71200400001)(6436002)(186003)(6246003)(5640700003)(256004)(53936002)(5660300002)(486006)(76116006)(6306002)(6512007)(2501003)(476003)(14444005)(446003)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN8PR11MB3635; H:BN8PR11MB3745.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: qeSlU/ZYkL+Z9IcynwbZY8OEOJPoWOznBJ0Zr/IBcnRHkYMO2KaIikc6bSUuDIH5+HJtC/hqp/foNCFBNjLOY3P89Q9gcdP1HkMN42fIQ1Xl9+dM9g6ePzurOlGjFCdrTDbitvDMkhVN2cWH0dEdRO3ZKfqFkdc6HVJVtIUGZXCIIxdpXd1yYX/Ed28fG0Iv7CktI0Uc8rS5a8BFhsph3EO0vShBnLsFrV0G4wqBpieM4Cm4w9xZrArAU5ecMoomNd9SXs+Dajqk6HtkfMmJfBZEBK29Z1KCg/fkLlm6MAEWZ3c0lEQSn2C8pHxfKxJSOR3u1LbBa+g66G4dW/vpzFhJ61U85AJozu+qN3/dZ7ydI8ir2iKWLlZln3nyRZXE+Eiy5B+hCGa5UkeA4iWxJrpGK/NkVyh4x4qNLjdFP+Y=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5CF92A4E865EE64091F060B96F448897@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6f04e0a6-944c-4216-c3fe-08d6f381d4f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jun 2019 00:13:46.6376 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: jerhenry@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN8PR11MB3635
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.16, xch-aln-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/IPxjbXtkxr4YdGDLGsLGRMfcLD4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG Status Summary - 15 June 2019
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:13:55 -0000

Hello Gorry, David and Wes,

Thank you for providing this opportunity to the group!
As you saw, we had quite some exchanges on the DiffServ to QCI draft, we believe that it might be useful to discuss the general goals, and what has been done (e.g. dialogs with 3GPP), would you consider allocating some time to thos topic?

Thank you!

Jerome 



On 6/15/19, 3:53 AM, "tsvwg on behalf of Gorry Fairhurst" <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>; wrote:

    Hi TSVWG'ers,
    
    This is a request for people with topics they think it would be useful 
    to be presented to the TSVWG working group at the Montreal IETF. If you 
    edit a WG draft, we expect an update. Please do let us know how much 
    time you think is needed, and the key points to be addressed.
    
    If you wish to present on another topic, or another non-WG draft please 
    contact and let us know what you would like to present. Please also be 
    sure to discuss the topic on the tsvwg prior to this meeting.
    
    As ever, priority, as ever will be given to drafts that have been 
    discussed on the list and that are expected to benefit from WG 
    discussion time.
    
    Gorry, David and Wes
    (TSVWG Co-Chairs)
    
    ============================================
    TSVWG Status Summary
    
    This is a summary of detailed status of the working group documents as 
    we see it.
    
    Please check below and comment on drafts using the list. Please do send 
    any corrections/omissions to the chairs.
    
    Gorry, David and Wes
    (TSVWG Chairs)
    June 2019
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    *** Documents recently published:
    
    RFC 8436 Document Shepherd: David
    
    Documents published:
    RFC 7496 Document Shepherd: Gorry
    RFC 7605 Document Shepherd: Gorry
    RFC 7857 Document Shepherd: David
    RFC 7829 Document Shepherd: Gorry
    RFC 8084 Document Shepherd: David
    RFC 8085 Document Shepherd: David
    RFC 8086 Document Shepherd: David
    RFC 8100 Document Shepherd: Gorry
    RFC 8260 Document Shepherd: Gorry
    RFC 8261 Document Shepherd: Gorry
    RFC 8325 Document Shepherd: David
    RFC 8311 Document Shepherd: Gorry
    
    ------
    IDs in RFC Editor Queue (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html) :
    
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos - PS - Document Shepherd: David
      - Approved, announcement 8th August 2016
      - RFC Editor: MISSREF - part of large rtcweb drafts hairball/tarball 
    (C238)
      - Chairs need to work with AD to  request an RFC Ed note to cover the 
    LE PHB
    ..draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb - PS - Document Shepherd: David
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    
    *** IDs in IESG Evaluation:
    
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme - Document Shepherd: Wes
    replaces - draft-roca-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme
    IETF-98 10 people had interest in work on this topic.
    Reviewers:
    + Marie-José Montpeti
    + Emmanuel Lochin
    + Jonathan Detchart
    + Ali Begen
    Completed WGLC with comments.
    Shepherd review completed. Revised ID published.
    IESG Evaluation.
    Announcement blocked on IESG approval of fecframe-ext draft.
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext  - Document Shepherd: Wes
    replaces - draft-roca-tsvwg-fecframev2
    IETF-97 (Seoul), presented - could this be an update rather than bis?
    Adoption call requested by authors
    IETF-98 10 people had interest in work on this topic.
    Reviewers:
    + Marie-José Montpeti
    + Emmanuel Lochin
    + Jonathan Detchart
    Completed WGLC with comments.
    Shepherd review completed.
    IESG Evaluation found a copyright issue, necessitating splitting the 
    tinymt32 PRNG code out into a separate draft.
    Announcement blocked on IESG approval of draft-ietf-tsvwg-tinymt32
    Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-tinymt32
    Discussed IETF 104
    Adopted 01,  intended for publication as a PS RFC
    WGLC: Last Call ends 2019-05-13
    IESG Evaluation - Telechat scheduled for 2019-05-30
    IESG Evaluation::AD FollowupRevisions being discussed.
    --------------------------
    *** WG Drafts with Chairs:
    ---
    
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-00 - PS - Document Shepherd: David
    Replaces: draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis
    Replaces: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040-update
    Topic thought to fall within TSVWG charter
    Support for this work noted (Berlin IETF, 2016)
    - to be published as a pair with ecn encaps.
    An adoption call was started on list by the Chairs until 22nd August 2016,
    concluded and adopted.
    Adopted,  intended for publication as a PS RFC
    WG work item - new-revision submitted
    ++ Randal Stewart will review
    ++ Randal Jessup will review
    IETF-97 (Seoul) presented
    Renamed as draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim - 15th Nov 2016.
    WGLC closed 7 September 2018
    Second WGLC, with reviewers
    + AM Completed review
    
    WGLC Concluded 17-May-2019, open issue about nature of updates to RFC 6040.
    DUE: Revised draft and WG Shepherd writeup
    
    --------------------------
    
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines - BCP - Document Shepherd: David
    Replaces: draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines
    -00 Presented in Prague, IETF-80.
    - comments at IETF-80 (see minutes)
    New ID presented in Atlanta, IETF-85. ID presented in IETF-88,89
    -  forward an appropriate message (perhaps your note to the mailing list for
    approval to adopt) to ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org)
    ++ Reviewers: Andrew McGregor, Dirk Kutscher, (Richard Sheffnegger), 
    Brian Trammell,
    Gorry.
    Mar 2014, WG Call for adoption started, to end 4th March 2014
    19 for, 1 against. 8 echoed on the list
    Adoption call concluded and document adopted.
    - ecn-encap-guidelines and AQM are the main new things they need to know 
    about.
    on <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/train-3.html>IEEE802.1Q)
    Liaison sent to IEEE 802 (Nov  24, 2014).
    Liaison sent to 3GPP (August 2015)
    Oct 2015 - Draft updated for Yokohama meetings.  Not sure about INT Area 
    presentation.
    Need some more soak time for 3GPP Liaison.
    3GPP liaison statement
    People who volunteered to review:
    * Andrew McGregor, Google
    * Dirk Kutscher, NEC
    * (I've also just asked Ingemar Johansson to volunteer)
    Support on list
    * Matt Mathis, Google * Richard Scheffenegger, NetApp * Michael Welzl, 
    Uni Oslo
    * Wei Xin Peng, Huawei * Rong Pan, Cisco * Michael Menth, Tubingen Uni
    * Zhu Lei, Huawei * Piers O'Hanlon, UCL * Philip Eardley, BT
    * Suresh Krishnan * An Nguyen, DHS/OEC * Vinay Bannai, Paypal
    * Mirja Kuehlewind, Stuttgart Uni, Ruediger Geib, DT
    Non-supportive of a doc solely about ECN.
    * Joe Touch, ISI
    IETF-98 (Chicago) Chairs will talk to TRILL chairs and try to get both 
    into WGLC.
    Document waiting for completion of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim
    WGLC with 6040update shim draft
    WGLC closed 7 September 2018
    Second WGLC with agreed reviewers
    + Richard S - completed review with followup
    + D Black - completed review
    + A McG - completed review with follow-up.
    WGLC Concluded 17-May-2019
    DUE: Revised draft and WG Shepherd writeup
    --------------------------
    *** WGLC - Please review and send comments to the list
    - Currently none.
    ----
    
    *** Working Group documents - Please comment on the list
    
    ---
    
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt Document Shepherd: David
    Support noted in INTAREA presentation (IETF-100)
    Presented in TSVWG, IETF-100
    Adoption requested by authors, will be taken up in IETF-102 meeting.
    Review received from Kathleen Moriarty
    Review received from Al Morton.
    Support for adoption indicated during WG meeting in Montreal, confirmed 
    on list.
    Sept 2018 Adopted.
    Reviewers:
    + Early SecDir review - Chris Wood (Done).
    + ART review requested.
    Revised-ID submitted: Comments after discussion on list.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list: Work considered ready for review.
    
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch - Document Shepherd: Wes
    Replaces draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-arch
    IETF-96, Previous version discussed at L4S BoF
    IETF-97 (Seoul), presented.
    IETF-98 (Chicago) 10 people had red the draft, clear support for adoption.
    Adopted.
    IETF-103: Only a few people had read rev -03. This is mostly stable.
    Reviewers:
    + Michael Abrahamsson - Review completed
    + Richard Scheffenegger - PENDING
    + Greg White - Review completed
    + INTAREA - to request at next IETF meeting
    DUE: Work considered ready for review; Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id - Document Shepherd: Wes
    Replaces draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id
    New draft Nov-2914: Identifying Modified Explicit Congestion 
    Notification (ECN)
    Semantics for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay
    IETF-96, Previous version discussed at L4S BoF
    IETF-97 (Seoul), presented.
    IETF-98 (Chicago) 10 people had red the draft, clear support for adoption.
    Adopted by tsvwg
    IETF-102 introdueced "RACK-Like requirement for transport"
    Reviewers:
    + G Fairhurst - Review completed
    + Ingemar Johansson - Review completed
    + Praveen Balasubramanian - Review completed
    + Michael Scharff (individual) - clarify dependency on AccECN ++++++++
    DUE: Work considered ready for review; Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-dualq-coupled  - Document Shepherd: Wes
    Replaces: draft-briscoe-aqm-dualq-coupled
    Currently individual draft, TSVWG will consider this.
    - requires update to base ECN RFC - see separate draft.
    *** IPR related to this draft was submitted: September 16, 2015 
    (Reasonable and
    Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible 
    Royalty/Fee) ***
    Updated -01 March 2016, discussed on the AQM WG list.
    IETF-97 (Seoul), presented, new research results (Nov 2016)
    IETF-98 (Chicago) 10 people had read the draft, clear support for adoption.
    Adopted by tsvwg
    IETF-103: No people had read latest version, 8 people promised.
    Reviewers:
    + David Pullen - Review completed
    + Nicolas Kuhn - Review completed
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list: Work considered ready for review.
    ---
    
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud - PS - Document Shepherd: David
    Replaces: draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-02
    Support noted in INTAREA presentation (IETF-100)
    Presented in TSVWG, IETF-100
    Thought to be within charter of TSVWG.
    DUE: Dec 2018: Adoption call completed, confirmed on TSVWG list
    Reviewers: Not yet requested.
    + Joe Touch (will review)
    + Wes Eddy  (will review)
    + Vincent Roca (will review)
    + Taksim Proshin (will review)
    + Ruediger Geib (will review)
    Revised-ID submitted: Comments after discussion on list.
    DUE: Work considered ready for review; Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback  - Document Shepherd: David
    Replaces: draft-wei-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-feedback
    - Thought to fall within TSVWG charter, comments welcome on tsvwg list.
    - IETF 91: Authors will work w/Bob Briscoe, who has a related individual 
    draft
    for conex, on feedback mechanisms.  Goal is concrete action taken based 
    on detected
    problems that can be used from other drafts by reference.  Also have to 
    deal with
    possibility of dropped packets within tunnel.  Draft returned to Working 
    Group,
    will need a second WGLC after it is revised.
    *** NOTE: 2 IPR declarations relate to the work of this draft ***
    November 2016: WGLC, but not enough reviews.  Two reviewers were found 
    in Seoul
    (Bob Briscoe, Jake Holland) - need reviews before considering progress.
    Document with WG Chairs - worked out use cases required to take draft 
    forward.
    IETF-101: Don Eastlake and Andy Malis have an SFC load balancing use 
    case for this,
    will work with authors.
    IETF-104: Nascent LOOPS effort is also interested in this draft, appears 
    to hae
    a use case, draft resurrected as a result. For info on LOOPs, contact
    Carsten Bormann or Yizhou Li.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp - PS - Document Shepherd: Gorry
    Replaces: draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg
    Dependency from BEHAVE WG (no longer applicable).
    Adopted as a work item 21 Sept 2010 (Gorry).
    WG -00, 29/11/2010 Uploaded as: draft-ietf-natsupp-tsvwg
    Authors restructured draft (-03)
    Added support for single and multi-homed support.
    IETF-86: 3 people in meeting had read -04 or -05.
    Feb 2014, Authors please update following comments and align to related 
    draft on
    SCTP NAT (conflicts found in language)
    Authors expected to produce a single document to replace both.
    ++ Dan Wing has committed to review this.
    ++ Fred Baker has committed to review this.
    Separated the simpler case for single-homed use - this separation should 
    be clear.
    March 2015 document restructured and merged with draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpnat
    March 2015, initial review by Gorry - need to consider helping NAT 
    vendors access
    the recommendations.
    + Gorry, Karen: Minor Nits,
    Scope of IPv4 NAT discussed in Prague IETF and still thought within Charter.
    Authors expect to complete by May 2018.
    WG Chair comments pending a WGLC.
    DUE: Revised ID-needed.
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options - Document Shepherd: Gorry
    Replaces: draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options
    Transport Options for UDP
    - Presentation at IETF Nov 2015.
    Topic thought to fall within TSVWG charter
    Discussed IETF-96 (Berlin)
    IETF-97 (Seoul) presented - no comments.
    IETF-98 (Chicago) 5 + 1 jabber interested in this topic, 1 thought we 
    shouldn't
    Comments on security model and discussed on list
    Adoption call until 31st May 2017 - Closed
    Tom Jones - supports adoption (will try an implementation)
    Adopted.
    Reviewers:
    + Tom Herbert (will review)
    + Mike Heard (will review)
    + D Fawcus (will review)
    Milestone updated.
    
    DUE: Revised-ID needed to incorporate feedback.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list: Work considered ready for review.
    
    ---
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-01  Document Shepherd: Gorry
    SCTP.bis
    Adoped November 2018.
    DUE: Revised-ID needed.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    -------------------------------
    Drafts under consideration by WG for adoption:
    draft-white-tsvwg-nqb
    Identifying and Handling Non-Queue Building Flows
    Presented ITF-103
    DUE: Adoption requested by authors, please read for next meeting.
    -------------------------------
    Other drafts and work items linked to TSVWG:
    ---
    draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci-01
    Diffserv to QCI Mapping
    - Discussed IETF-103, need to determine relationship to 3GPP Specs.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-white-tsvwg-lld-00
    Low Latency DOCSIS - Technology Overview
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-white-tsvwg-nqb-01
    Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link
    - Discussed IETF-103.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce-00
    The Some Congestion Experienced ECN Codepoint
    - Discussed IETF-104.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-cons  - Document Shepherd: N/A.
    - Thought to fall within TSVWG charter.
    - Presented to TSVWG in Buenos Aires (April 2016)
    - Update at Soul IETF (Nov 2016)
    - This list or errata will not be published as a RFC, it will be 
    replaced by a .bis document.
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-proshin-tsvwg-sctp-rtx-bit-01
    Retransmit bit for SCTP DATA, I-DATA and SACK
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    draft-jovev-tsvwg-sctp-rto-04
    Determining SCTP's Retransmission Timer
    DUE: Please discuss on the TSVWG list.
    ---
    Liaisons:
    ITU-T Study Group 12 Liaison on QoS Classes & markings for interconnection
    IEEE liaison to support L2/L3 work on ECN marking
    3GPP liaison to support L2/L3 work on ECN marking
    ==================================================================