[tsvwg] Adoption of diffserv-intercon and rfc5405bis drafts
"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Tue, 02 December 2014 00:33 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82D31A1ABC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:33:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 L7K6ZZ8tOUqp for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991251A7032 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.35]) by mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id sB20Xr8x025209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:33:53 -0500
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com sB20Xr8x025209
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1417480433; bh=8m8EgS6tCI6B/dgdAzCvPiKM/hs=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=VgOkFBiNejzynGvgKQ6jhiDPQhpuBCIx3EHaf+d6ZDrJ5Q2ZiJyZ8wylK1z+k0LuE DR8E+FZKY4PKd83PwxnCRFwNMCysDh7tclfu2mJOx9CbD7NcE9iF4OowD0YmTl3Yrn zEKz0n94sJ4rOWcdvT6Mfs8KdmQXM1Riv/q7NQnA=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com sB20Xr8x025209
Received: from mailusrhubprd53.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd53.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.18]) by maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:33:09 -0500
Received: from mxhub02.corp.emc.com (mxhub02.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.104]) by mailusrhubprd53.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id sB20XcrE014895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:33:39 -0500
Received: from MXHUB205.corp.emc.com (10.253.68.31) by mxhub02.corp.emc.com (10.254.141.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:33:38 -0500
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.125]) by MXHUB205.corp.emc.com ([fe80::2b:c770:c6f4:ee06%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:33:38 -0500
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adoption of diffserv-intercon and rfc5405bis drafts
Thread-Index: AdANx5qsJSxiLPMPQ+eThiY2QlVRxQ==
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:33:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493628106A@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.45.72]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd53.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/S1_78aMDA5RUD8CH6MVEQIvq1Yw
Subject: [tsvwg] Adoption of diffserv-intercon and rfc5405bis drafts
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Dec 2014 00:33:58 -0000
Having seen no further comment on this matter: > 2) The sense of the room in Honolulu was to adopt the following two > drafts as WG drafts: > > DiffServ interconnection classes and practice > draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/ > > UDP Usage Guidelines > draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ > > Absent objection on the list, these drafts will be adopted. > Please comment by November 30. These drafts have been adopted by the tsvwg WG. Would the authors please submit -00 draft-ietf-tsvwg- versions with no change of text from the latest individual submission version? Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Black, David > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:48 PM > To: tsvwg@ietf.org > Cc: aqm@ietf.org > Subject: [tsvwg] Draft Honolulu minutes posted > > ... before I get on the plane out of here! > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-tsvwg > > Many thanks to Aaron Falk and Joel Halpern for taking notes, as > there were lively discussions in both sessions that were not easy > to follow. They captured everything important. > > Here are some important items that people should know about: > > 1) There are a number of expired WG drafts that need author attention: > ECN Encapsulation Guidelines > NAT Behavioral Requirements Updates > RSVP Multiple Instance Object > SCTP NAT Support > > 2) The sense of the room in Honolulu was to adopt the following two > drafts as WG drafts: > > DiffServ interconnection classes and practice > draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/ > > UDP Usage Guidelines > draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ > > Absent objection on the list, these drafts will be adopted. > Please comment by November 30. > > 3) The meeting determined that there is no WG rough consensus > for requiring use of the full UDP checksum for GRE-in-UDP > with IPv6. The design team will continue work on when > zero checksum is acceptable (as well as congestion > considerations). > > 4) See the minutes for the lengthy and interesting discussion of the > tunnel congestion feedback draft. There is one important issue > that needs to be followed up across the TSVWG and AQM WGs (aqm > list cc:'d for this reason): > > OPEN ISSUE *1: Should ECN indications (CE) be treated as equivalent > to drops? This also came up in AQM. This is primarily about > endpoint (or tunnel egress) reaction to CE. > > Enjoy, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- >
- [tsvwg] Adoption of diffserv-intercon and rfc5405… Black, David