[tsvwg] SCTP WG?
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 03 September 2021 18:15 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 E2EA23A2790; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=gmail.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 JSr5glwXTgfU; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B05663A2792; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id x5so6056718ill.3; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ccb6KllVS7xw+Mvc+9x44EzERDaTESSshAZlCwq0Bv8=; b=q252F7gNLFWnTCHNS4g5RdY02+TQfXynMAfEyGfh6Y8BC+h68BFSD8D7+/vS4lREZO /z8M0BPfZF3VSmtS1yse7rfbAAn2yOQNnQfGdj4jbi03MWkDUFjhkz1RRAfTdVr/Bj+k RF0WaTnQZhCyuQkIROtAVhcMdSrSIs/ogKDKE8jG3Rdru2I55QotY2aToVZbCGYu/xw5 qsNqTYCPCqn8ZlKW8+UNJ73Kc2V4CxdQsM6f+xHAAHPakdLhTuzDacMas/DoeS6duzHv I62nuwx3acap/x6BD1mFQyvaDLjqpr5A4aqaBxUekVSWxYoio5xpn5whV2d6U9aBALkv cQNg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ccb6KllVS7xw+Mvc+9x44EzERDaTESSshAZlCwq0Bv8=; b=Jk3QiDf9Xax1wEWsfbkB/opFTiT0GFerWNspMru5M70/Q9UqpS5qrFOKHECM4s+9Eh kQvFiTblQSb5EG1VurNLoxuQL6/sSyNcUYY91cfPuG7emErXABBQk30pXLKneXCG8ckP 4axoNRcRtrzptDQ5+qFLIlVJHOSqTbsa6W7mbuC1fG4/QXS4FI1hp9y+vXEtBIbb2Caa zspVI0D2xuhL/Mt1YKzXwynDj7DIULnyzeBModk6yeCfYtQVrshdJ1D2SBFGDbijqm44 Qehng4SQ8+MbzyEP/dn7IociltIHGuhW0SEoscK0e/ZOXVfpsX42ZyzQJWr9ipbjt2HS fggQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yklEZ30+ezcYsOjnXhWUvgPWTOd4dJxIE8LQCsGHlKKqDMCyg ld3mfcMwjOgeUijozCQ6puPP4cWrHoO8ftlhbIx5MMgjDo0qaw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxXdx6xRMhkIvTpV/odyAFVynLv+HcV+Oa8I+ypjYoDRS+HbiIEcx0PpZcOm+F29uQR61Sva7lDkzV1EblJoEs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:17cf:: with SMTP id z15mr159120ilu.103.1630692927536; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:15:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxRs1=+o9qb115F=009KckQvCJFgtrXB7OxUs5BsJ37kNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsvwg-chairs <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000af02d805cb1b481e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/YUNM4jiwfQgs5tZylsFMkv803Lk>
Subject: [tsvwg] SCTP WG?
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: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 18:15:35 -0000
TL;DR the preliminary BOF deadline is 10 September, and if there is genuine interest in a large number of SCTP proposals, I would like to pencil in the proponents now and get something in. *********** Setting aside 4960bis, which is essentially done, here are the SCTP-related drafts in tsvwg right now: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp/ which may or may not move forward https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis/ just got adopted https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dreibholz-tsvwg-sctp-nextgen-ideas/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dreibholz-tsvwg-sctpsocket-multipath/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dreibholz-tsvwg-sctpsocket-sqinfo/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-porfiri-tsvwg-sctp-natsupp/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-multipath/ and Michael Tuexen's talk at the interim today makes me think he has another draft in him. This is a lot of stuff -- more than enough to form its own working group, and I'd like to keep tsvwg's bandwidth for true one-off things rather than multi-document efforts. I don't care about the name at this point, but I imagine this would not be a permanent working group. So -- there are a few things I would very much like rapid feedback on -- rapid, i.e. by the middle of next week: 1. As an individual tsvwg member, do you see at least 3-4 documents in that list that the IETF should adopt? 2. Are you willing to be a BoF proponent to help submit a proposal? 3. Are you willing to chair a BoF at IETF 112? Thanks, Martin
- [tsvwg] SCTP WG? Martin Duke
- Re: [tsvwg] SCTP WG? Martin Duke