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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

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.

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]; Wassim Haddad; [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] 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.
>>>
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>
>> --
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> __
>> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

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