Re: [tsvwg] New draft to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN, etc. for ECN

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

[correcting [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]

On Jul 8, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

David,

On 08/07/16 15:50, Black, David wrote:
VXLAN (RFC 7348) is an independent submission (ISE) RFC - it is not updatable by the IETF.
Yeah, I realised that after I pressed submit (as I said).
I've removed VXLAN from the "Updates" header.
I will just have to treat VXLAN like I've treated GTP - cite it, and say we expect the <other forum> to refer to the present spec.


And VXLAN-GPE <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02>?

Thanks,

— Carlos.

I've updated my local copy, and I've mentioned Geneve and GUE, altho they already correctly refer to RFC6040, so no need to "update" them.
I might post an -01 draft before the deadline tonight. That didn't used to be possible when the deadlines were on different days, but I think it works now.


Bob

Thanks, --David

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 8:12 AM
To: tsvwg IETF list; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Wassim Haddad; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Gorry
Fairhurst; Black, David
Subject: New draft to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN, etc. for ECN

tsvwg, intarea, and respective co-chairs,

I have posted a new very brief draft (under 2 pages not incl.
boilerplate), intended for standards track as a bis to RFC6040.
As suggested in Buenos Aires, this has been extracted from
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines, to cut all the clutter and
highlight solely the standards track stuff.

Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers
Separated by a Shim
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis-00

If approved, it is intended to update L2TP, GRE, PPTP, GTP & VXLAN.
Obviously the IETF does not control GTP - see text for how 3GPP might
use this spec.
Simialrly, given VXLAN is informational, it's perhaps not appropriate to
update it - exactly how this is worded is for discussion.

For IETF-96, I've asked for a slot in intarea to explain, and I also
hope to cover this in an ecn-encap-guidelines slot in tsvwg.

I'd appreciate help identifying more tunnelling protocols that follow
the pattern of a shim sandwiched between two IP headers.
Since posting, I've looked at Joe's Tunnelling draft and realised I
missed out Geneve and GUE. More?

Cheers


Bob

On 08/07/16 12:41, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis
Revision: 00
Title: Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel
Headers Separated by a Shim
Document date: 2016-07-08
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 5
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-
rfc6040bis-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis-00


Abstract:
    RFC 6040 on "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification" made the
    rules for propagation of ECN consistent for all forms of IP in IP
    tunnel.  This specification extends the scope of RFC 6040 to include
    tunnels where two IP headers are separated by a shim header that
    cannot stand alone.




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<http://tools.ietf.org>.

The IETF Secretariat

--
______________________________________________________________
__
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

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