Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt] - new text

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Draft Shepherd,

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
>
>
> > I'm not seeing any responses to this on the TSVWG mailing list. Is this
> ready to go?
>
>
>
> As draft shepherd, I believe that the timer-related issues were the only
> technical item needing resolution after Berlin.
>
> With the rewritten text in 3.1.1 having resolved those issues, I t think
> this draft is ready to go.
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David
>

Oh, thank you!

I'll give Lars a chance to reply, and then do the right thing based on his
response.

Spencer


>
>
> *From:* tsvwg [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Spencer
> Dawkins at IETF
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:30 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt]
> - new text
>
>
>
> Hi, Gorry,
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:49 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Lars and I just submitted a new revision of this ID.
>
> This is a result of discussion with Mark Alman on the topic of advice for
> using timers with UDP protocols/application and the pending issue
> presented at TSVWG in Berlin  (Mark's work on TCP timer usage was
> discussed in TCPM at the last IETF meeting). After working through the
> points in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis, Mark volunteered improved text for
> section 3.1 - Thanks Mark for helping to get the wording correct.
>
> We hope this new text resolves the issue and we can now move forward.
>
>
>
> I hope so, too, of course!
>
> I'm not seeing any responses to this on the TSVWG mailing list. Is this
> ready to go?
>
>
>
> I'm assuming we're close, so getting ready to put this on a telechat
> agenda. I've been copied on (most of?) the discussion since IETF Last Call,
> so I'm not surprised at the changes in https://tools.ietf.org/
> rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt&url2=draft-
> ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt. Thanks for that.
>
>
>
> It's in previous versions, too, but
>
>
>
>    required when operating over the general.
>
>
>
> should be
>
>
>
>    required when operating over the general Internet.
>
>
>
> The authors can fix that (quickly) if they agree, or I can put it in my
> Yes ballot when we start IESG Evaluation (but reviewers who are assigned to
> re-review at telechat time may also notice it and complain). Please let me
> know which you prefer.
>
>
>
> Spencer
>
>
>
> Gorry, Lars and Greg
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : UDP Usage Guidelines
>         Authors         : Lars Eggert
>                           Godred Fairhurst
>                           Greg Shepherd
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt
>         Pages           : 58
>         Date            : 2016-09-14
>
> Abstract:
>    The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) provides a minimal message-passing
>    transport that has no inherent congestion control mechanisms.  This
>    document provides guidelines on the use of UDP for the designers of
>    applications, tunnels and other protocols that use UDP.  Congestion
>    control guidelines are a primary focus, but the document also
>    provides guidance on other topics, including message sizes,
>    reliability, checksums, middlebox traversal, the use of ECN, DSCPs,
>    and ports.
>
>    Because congestion control is critical to the stable operation of the
>    Internet, applications and other protocols that choose to use UDP as
>    an Internet transport must employ mechanisms to prevent congestion
>    collapse and to establish some degree of fairness with concurrent
>    traffic.  They may also need to implement additional mechanisms,
>    depending on how they use UDP.
>
>    Some guidance is also applicable to the design of other protocols
>    (e.g., protocols layered directly on IP or via IP-based tunnels),
>    especially when these protocols do not themselves provide congestion
>    control.
>
>    This document obsoletes RFC5405 and adds guidelines for multicast UDP
>    usage.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
>