IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Wed, 22 April 2020 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 60F8A3A0A94; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 05:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 ln7uBiLXqpwC; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 05:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs22.mail.saunalahti.fi (vs22.mail.saunalahti.fi [193.64.193.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9C783A0A93; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 05:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs22.mail.saunalahti.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vs22.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BF220303; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:03:17 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.116]) by vs22.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2132027E; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:03:17 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eggert@elisanet.fi) by gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 514FE40003; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:03:11 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from stickers.eggert.org (stickers.eggert.org [172.21.96.212]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A043F87233F; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:03:06 +0300 (EEST)
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <5CA9F5F9-67F9-4739-9991-E4C9E5F760B8@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B344FD70-7C7B-4477-9ED8-1E8B4D36EE3D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:03:06 +0300
In-Reply-To: <cb27cc0562f835f9086e46c9b17e6910c0de905f.camel@ericsson.com>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud.all@ietf.org>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <158603467562.27263.2918619786629536861@ietfa.amsl.com> <cb27cc0562f835f9086e46c9b17e6910c0de905f.camel@ericsson.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: A043F87233F.A6B70
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/LjS4DnTsLXm5vSldRQxyLgVAmLQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-19
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: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:03:22 -0000

Hi,

On 2020-4-20, at 16:19, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> You do have a point here. Considering that QUIC transport is not ready, I think
> the alternative to have this document hang in RFC-editors queue is to actually
> move Section 6.3 into draft-ietf-quic-transport.
> 
> QUIC WG what do you think of that solution? It would allow draft-ietf-tsvwg-
> datagram-plpmtud to be published without delays.

the chairs discussed this for a bit, and we're a bit hesitant to go this route.

IIRC, if both docs have mutual normative references to one another, they get clustered and published together anyway. Do we need more?

If we actually want to WGLC them together, TSVWG can maybe park -plpmtud for a bit?

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email