[tsvwg] Questions re Liaisons: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Gorry,

Att'd are draft slides for tsvwg on Wed.
(pending co-author review - I'll let you know if any changes arise)

Contained therein some questions for you as chairs:
Q1. 3GPP: Ought we to send send a final formal liaison, giving pointers 
to advice?
If so, I will draft it.

Q2. In the appendix listing outstanding issues 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07#appendix-A>, 
I've said both can be closed, and given their resolutions.
Do you agree?:


    Appendix A
    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07#appendix-A>.
    Outstanding Document Issues

    1.  [GF] Concern that certain guidelines warrant a MUST (NOT) rather

        than a SHOULD (NOT).  Given the guidelines say that if any SHOULD
        (NOT)s are not followed, a strong justification will be needed,
        they have been left as SHOULD (NOT) pending further list
        discussion.  In particular:

        *  If inner is a Not-ECN-PDU and Outer is CE (or highest severity
           congestion level), MUST (not SHOULD) drop?

           This issue has been addressed by explaining when SHOULD or
           MUST is appropriate [in first bullet of section 5.4. 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-06#section-5.4>].

    2.  Consider whether an IETF Standard Track doc will be needed to
        Update the IP-in-IP protocols listed in Section 5.1--at least
        those that the IETF controls--and which Area it should sit under.

        This issue has been addressed by the production of
        [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis], but this text is left outstanding
        until that draft is adopted.


Q3. Can draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis be fast-tracked?
   (it contains the same text as was in the larger ecn-encap BCP that 
has already been widely reviewed. Now just in a smaller PS container.)

Regards


Bob


On 08/07/16 23:12, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> tsvwg chairs, and tsvwg list,
>
> I've revised draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines twice today.
> All the items I promised to update are now updated, and all the open 
> issues listed in the appendix are closed off.
> It's had a number of reviews during its long life (started 2011), but 
> it probably needs at least one more final look.
>
> So I believe it is now ready for a last call, for which I hope we can 
> get a volunteer fresh pair of eyes to check it over.
> The intarea chairs have added a brief heads-up on this to their 
> longlist for their Berlin agenda, but no confirmation published yet. 
> We might get a volunteer to review from that.
>
> A list of all the deltas between -05 & -07 follows:
>
>       *  Introduction: Added GUE and Geneve as examples of tightly
>          coupled shims between IP headers that cite RFC 6040.  And added
>          VXLAN to list of those that do not.
>
>       *  Replaced normative text about tightly coupled shims between IP
>          headers, with reference to new draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis
>
>       *  Wire Protocol Design: Indication of ECN Support: Added TRILL as
>          an example of a well-design protocol that does not need an
>          indication of ECN support in the wire protocol.
>
>       *  Encapsulation Guidelines: In the case of a Not-ECN-PDU with a
>          CE outer, replaced SHOULD be dropped, with explanations of when
>          SHOULD or MUST are appropriate.
>
>       *  Feed-Up-and-Forward Mode: Explained examples more carefully,
>          referred to PDCP and cited UTRAN spec as well as E-UTRAN.
>
>       *  Added the people involved in liaisons to the acknowledgements.
>
>       *  Updated references.
>
>       *  Marked open issues as resolved, but did not delete Open Issues
>          Appendix (yet).
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Bob
>
> On 08/07/16 22:59, [e-mail] wrote:
>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Name:        draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines
>> Revision:    07
>> Title:        Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to 
>> Protocols that Encapsulate IP
>> Document date:    2016-07-08
>> Group:        tsvwg
>> Pages:        34
>> URL: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07.txt
>> Status: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/
>> Htmlized: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07
>> Diff: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion
>>     notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that
>>     encapsulates IP.  The aim is for explicit congestion signals to
>>     propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP. Then the
>>     IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
>>     congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
>>     transport layer (L4).  Following these guidelines should assure
>>     interworking between new lower layer congestion notification
>>     mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/