Re: [tsvwg] Slides to support discussion of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040shim-update

"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Wed, 08 April 2020 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.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 54AC33A14AD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 YKarfzsbSujB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFA9C3A14AA for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 038H7HUO001545; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:37:22 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=WK5cLbKU2oymZyv63+EAGfYYD4cKl0EQAGZeI6yc71E=; b=ZFUVBUzc9lfBlr0MP8wT9+PI3MygcCf3Rh+t+wW0hOun7S2JA7kUVNF5xKQyfNh8WIlM 5klMsunTRgut0uLlsLPoWDKJRUYnMloQ3zKRuuJeGbb+w6N4TeSTpgIIYADBthkvwqtb s/krlvOx/N3pgeV/ST25NbjtjcGkYZnd8B8aMB9Nd9JzWOFH9RkivlczQKYg105dNIsT GzqctKD9iwtDVJ27thsdfDPyh+6H6V0DvI7illIyZmN2V1srL/6J7jHl+prAVhL7yswV 5F0OMqRllqL/XOALpxZypcV3s0NhGO2NvBi2YipdNsejJft7eQaPAQHFMOekRD3wRs0s qg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3091pd6cnt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 08 Apr 2020 18:37:22 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 038H2PvY005349; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:37:22 -0700
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3091j9bpqv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:37:22 -0700
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:37:21 -0400
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:37:21 -0400
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Slides to support discussion of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040shim-update
Thread-Index: AQHWDa2RIZHe0SvrkUS5oE0T870m8KhvSw8A
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:37:20 +0000
Message-ID: <435BEDD1-47A9-490E-8746-E9E616F2A700@akamai.com>
References: <5f207793-e26a-30eb-3243-f2d9bb5d4430@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <5f207793-e26a-30eb-3243-f2d9bb5d4430@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.35.20030802
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.80.233]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E3B30839487D594AA9C9C65879BD2AD2@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-04-07_10:2020-04-07, 2020-04-07 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2002250000 definitions=main-2004080129
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-04-07_10:2020-04-07, 2020-04-07 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004080129
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/VpXvaNbUQHKN9jyfWbP22PQnu0c>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Slides to support discussion of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040shim-update
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, 08 Apr 2020 17:38:14 -0000

I added a link to David's previous on-list advice to the etherpad meeting
notes, even though I didn't think it worth bringing to the queue in
realtime:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/V_l4laD6ECKz3oinwy4UOPmatBM/


The salient point being:

(From David):
"Note to the wise: It would be unwise to assume that such a new draft
will proceed without discussion or controversy - e.g., as fragmentation
is a mechanism whose use is generally discouraged unless there is no
viable alternative, questions will inevitably arise about how much IETF
time and effort should be devoted a mechanism that the IETF would likely
deprecate if we could.

A wise WG participant will review draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile before
responding to this note to the wise (hint) - see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/.  That
draft is IESG-approved to become a BCP (Best Current Practice), and is
currently in the RFC Editor Queue."


I thought this might be an especially useful point to highlight for anyone
newly considering joining the discussion on this topic after seeing the
presentation, so I thought I'd also raise it early in this thread, in hopes
it's helpful to someone.

Best regards,
Jake

On 4/8/20, 6:56 AM, "Bob Briscoe" <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:

    tsvwg chairs, (David, Gorry, Wes) & tsvwg list,
    
    I've produced 4 slides that might be useful to support the fragment 
    reassembly discussion on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040shim-update
    http://bobbriscoe.net/presents/2004ietf/2004rfc6040update-shim.pdf
    
    
    
    Bob
    
    -- 
    ________________________________________________________________
    Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/