[tsvwg] New draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Fri, 08 July 2016 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
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 38FAB12D8AB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9UL75isH-Pz3 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57DDF12D0C2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 114.50.113.87.dyn.plus.net ([87.113.50.114]:60931 helo=[192.168.0.6]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1bLe10-0004ZU-JX; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:12:55 +0100
References: <20160708215958.32168.28746.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <57802564.6080005@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:12:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160708215958.32168.28746.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/wApZ9EuCtYJxXbqZISYizyzwVBM>
Cc: Pat Thaler <pthaler@broadcom.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [tsvwg] New draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 08 Jul 2016 22:13:02 -0000

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, internet-drafts@ietf.org 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/