Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG DRAFT STATUS October 2012

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Hello, thanks for your feedback.

Regrettably, I will not be able to attend the IETF meeting in Atlanta, so
there will be no possibility for me to organize a "side meeting". Thus, we
will have to work using the mailing lists (according to Scott Bradner's
presentation for newcomers, "most working group work must be done on mailing
lists"). The Euro Zone crisis cannot stop this work. Nevertheless, I will
try to get funds to attend the next one in Orlando. 

In the meantime, we are receiving a lot of feedback in the mailing list
[e-mail], which will be taken into account for the next versions of
the draft(s). So the answer to the question of James is: perhaps the number
of interested people is still low, but it is growing. I have just checked
the archives, and 17 different people have posted something in the list
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/maillist.html). They are
from 13 different companies or universities. We have even received some
feedback from LISP WG people. 

As James says, we have to "jump through some hoops", but I think we have
already jumped some of them. Thank you very much!

Jose

-----Mensaje original-----
De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Enviado el: sábado, 20 de octubre de 2012 9:17
Para: James Polk
CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Asunto: Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG DRAFT STATUS October 2012

I agree.

At the moment I do not see drafts from this group that look like they are
mature enough to progress within TSVWG. it t is hard to comment further
though until we see a set of drafts that people may read.

Gorry Fairhurst

> At 09:04 AM 10/19/2012, Jose Saldana wrote:
>>Hello.
>>
>>Regarding draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf, the question is that there is a 
>>specific mailing list ([e-mail]), and we are currently 
>>discussing about it there. One of the topics of the discussion is if a 
>>Working Group should be created for it. This is the reason why it does 
>>not appear in  your mail, isn't it?
>
> correct
>
> General question - from your lists's discussions, is there enough 
> interested people to think about attempting to form a WG, in your view?
>
> If so, are you having an unofficial meeting (often called a 'Bar BoF', 
> that doesn't meet during any other normal session slot to maximize 
> attendance) during the Atlanta meeting? This type of meeting could 
> demonstrate to the ADs that you might justify an official BoF at the 
> next meeting (Orlando). There are some hoops that need to be jumped 
> through though. I'm just wondering how far along and how organized 
> your topic has come.
>
> James
>
>
>>Thank you very much,
>>
>>Jose
>>
>> > -----Mensaje original-----
>> > De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En 
>> > nombre
>> de
>> > [e-mail]
>> > Enviado el: viernes, 19 de octubre de 2012 12:10
>> > Para: [e-mail]
>> > Asunto: [tsvwg] TSVWG DRAFT STATUS October 2012
>> >
>> > The list below shows the 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.
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> > James, Rolf and Gorry
>> > (TSVWG Chairs)
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Recently published:
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying was published as RFC 6411.
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket was published as RFC 6458.
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst was published as RFC 6535.
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench was published as RFC 6633.
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > IDs in RFC Editor Queue:
>> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html
>> > None.
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > IDs in IESG processing:
>> > None.
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > NOTE:
>> > ITU-T Study Group 12 - TSVWG needs to respond to the ITU-T Liaison 
>> > on
>> QoS
>> > Classes & markings for interconnection
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > WG Drafts with Chairs:
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encap
>> > (Replaced: draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encap) Lars sent a note as AD 
>> > agreeing to progress this work.
>> > Work was coordinated with DCCP work on encaps.
>> > draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encaps-06, January 10, 2011 Adopted as a work
>> item
>> > 21 Sept 2011 (Gorry) WG -02 8 Dec 2011 WGLC completed Friday 20th
>> April
>> > 2012, many discussion and notes that there were implementations.
>> > 13th Oct 2012, comments sent on draft to prepare for submission.
>> > DUE: Revised ID needed prior to AD submission, changes agreed.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest
>> > New editor added Jul 2010.
>> > New revision 25 Oct 2010.
>> > WG -01, June 10, 2011
>> > IETF-81: discussed whether this should be BCP.
>> > ADs & Chairs agree to progress as a BCP Status changed to BCP 
>> > (new-ID WG -05) Presented at IETF-82 (Taipei), request for WGLC.
>> > Gorry added as Shepherd (Jan 2012), Wes added as responsible AD 
>> > (Jun 2012).
>> > WGLC concluded with comments on I-D, Friday 30th March 2012.
>> > Draft version of write-up sent to list, comments received.
>> > - Gorry working with authors to clear list of WGLC questions (5 
>> > sept
>> 2012)
>> > DUE: WG Chair waiting for version that includes additional feedback
>> during
>> > WGLC
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > WG Drafts:
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
>> > Previous version : draft-karagiannis-pcn-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
>> > WG interest in this topic recorded at IETF-81.
>> > Individual -01, 2011-07-11
>> > AD decision allowed this to be added to the milestones The document
>> was
>> > adopted, status will be EXP (IETF-84 due to dependencies on PCN 
>> > RFCs)
>> WG -
>> > 00 8 Oct 2011
>> > DUE: Please comment on RVSP aspects (RSVP-DIR review requested 13th
>> Oct
>> > 2012)
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-tsvwg
>> > (Replaced: draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg) 
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp/
>> > Dependency from BEHAVE WG.
>> > Adopted as a work item 21 Sept 2010 (Gorry).
>> > WG -00, 29/11/2010
>> > Uploaded as: draft-ietf-natsupp-tsvwg WG -01, June 1, 2011 Authors 
>> > restructured draft (-03)
>> > DUE: Discussion needed on list.
>> >
>> > draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover
>> > Individual-00 Presented in Prague, IETF-80.
>> > - understood not to conflict with draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath
>> > - PF has been coded into FreeBSD
>> > DUE: WG adoption being considered - please comment to list 26/6/2012.
>> > Adopted by WG
>> > DUE: Please comment on list.
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec
>> > WG interest in this topic recorded at IETF-78.
>> > Charter update would be needed to progress this work.
>> > 5 Reviews needed to determine energy/technical direction.
>> > WG -05 (presented in Beijing, IETF-79) WG -06 (presented in Prague, 
>> > IETF-80) RSVP directorate was consulted.
>> > 2 reviews from RSVP-DIR received (Bruce Davie, ?)
>> > 2 additional reviews promised (Ken Carlberg, Francois LeF) Chairs
>> asked AD
>> > for a Charter update (IESG agreed) Draft discussed at IETF-80, and
>> request
>>to
>> > update charter agreed
>> > - AD advised 4 named reviewers will be required Adopted for
>> progression as
>> > PS, for May 2012
>> > - New approach presented following WG comments
>> > DUE: Discussion needed on list.
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-00
>> > (replaces draft-touch-tsvwg-port-use-00)
>> > - Intended to be advice to protocol designers needing a port.
>> > 5 people have looked at this document, Prague IETF-80 Individual 
>> > -01
>> July
>> > 2011
>> > IETF-81 insufficient feedback from WG at this time.
>> > WG needs to assess if the new draft should be a work item.
>> > IETF-82, discussed - Chairs will ask WG to consider.
>> > Adopted by WG
>> > DUE: Revised ID expected to complete missing sections
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > WG action required:
>> >
>> > draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles
>> > -01 Presented in Beijing, IETF-79.
>> > -02, 14-Mar-2011
>> > Presented IET-80.
>> > WG needs to assess if the new draft should be a work item.
>> > Seek to coordinate with music with partner ID:
>> > draft-polk-mmusic-traffic-class-for-sdp
>> > Author requests to make a WG work item...
>> > Gorry liaised with MMUSIC WG Chairs on companion draft, intended 
>> > for
>> LC
>> > early 2013.
>> > Gorry - not much discussion on this list, please assess as a 
>> > candidate
>>working
>> > document.
>> > DUE: ***PLEASE*** comment on list.
>> >
>> > draft-polk-tsvwg-rfc4594-update
>> > - noted at IETF-84, but not discussed (no time).
>> > draft-polk-tsvwg-new-dscp-assignments
>> > - noted at IETF-84, but not discussed (no time).
>> > WG action required (Transport Protocols):
>> >
>> > draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath
>> > -00 Presented in Prague, IETF-80.
>> > - understood not to conflict with draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover
>> -01,
>>2010-
>> > 12-27
>> > DUE: Please comment to list.
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > The following have received recent discussion at TSVWG meetings or 
>> > on
>> the
>> > list. Inclusion in the list below does not indicate support for 
>> > these
>>specific
>> > drafts and other contributions are also warmly welcomed.
>> >
>> > draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions
>> > Reactions to Signaling from ECN Support for RTP/RTCP
>> > -00 presented IETF-82
>> > Not yet requested to become a work item.
>> > - This draft is related to the new rmcat work.
>> > DUE: Please comment on list.
>> >
>> > draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately
>> > -05, 2011-01-02
>> > - Aug 2011, discussed on list and issues raised.
>> > DUE: Chairs need to confirm adoption (need to do work).
>> > DUE: New revision need (to address comments) Please comment on list.
>> >
>> > draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpecn-02
>> > Partially replaces (draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctp-nonce)
>> > IETF-78 suggested there was interest in this topic.
>> > Discussed at IETF-83, Paris.
>> > DUE: ECN is within the TSVWG Charter, will call for adoption on the 
>> > list.
>> > DUE: Please comment on list.
>> >
>> > draft-polk-tsvwg-rfc4594-update-00
>> > Discussed at IETF-83, Paris
>> > DUE: A Revised ID is needed.
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Related non-TSVWG items:
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat-03.txt
>> > BEHAVE WG item linked to SCTP encapsulation work.
>> >
>> > draft-ietf-6man-udpzero
>> > Previously: draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-6man-udpzero
>> > Draft was adopted by 6man, please discuss on the 6man list.
>> > A WGLC of this draft is expected in 6MAN WG.
>> > Related draft: draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-00 This draft was also
>> LC'ed
>>in
>> > TSVWG (end 3rd May 2012)
>> >
>> > draft-ohanlon-rmcat-dflow
>> > Discussed at IETF-84, Vancouver
>> > This draft is related to the new rmcat work.
>> > In IESG discussion on making this a PS for UDP tunnels using IPv6
>> > DUE: Revised ID needed
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Other news:
>> >
>> > RSVP Directorate (formed in May 2010) Charter updated Aug 2011.
>> > New co-chair: Rolf Winter <[e-mail]>
>> >
>> > ITU-T Study Group 12 Liaison on QoS Classes & markings for
>> interconnection
>