Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG DRAFT STATUS October 2012

[[e-mail]]

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
>