Subject: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:28:20 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Internet Area Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture
        Authors         : Joe Touch
                          Mark Townsley
	Filename        : draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt
	Pages           : 52
	Date            : 2017-05-17

Abstract:
   This document discusses the role of IP tunnels in the Internet
   architecture. An IP tunnel transits IP datagrams as payloads in non-
   link layer protocols. This document explains the relationship of IP
   tunnels to existing protocol layers and the challenges in supporting
   IP tunneling, based on the equivalence of tunnels to links. The
   implications of this document are used to derive recommendations that
   update MTU and fragment issues in RFC 4459.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06

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/

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:50:43 -0700

Hi, all,

A new version of intarea-tunnels has been posted, as noted below.

At this point, I would like to ask the chairs to start a WG call to
consider revising the document track, as per below.

_*Some history:*_

This document began as a set of discussions at IETF 72 in Philadelphia
(2008), where a few ADs approached us to try to integrate a number of
emerging tunnel efforts, with the assumption of simply integrating them.
The result was an attempt to simply organize the landscape at the time.

We started that landscape as an INTAREA WG informational doc in March
2010. It took five years of discussions, both on this list and in other
WGs, to realize we needed to start by explaining our understanding of
the concept of a tunnel as a link (issues in 2015). At that point we
realized that many existing and emerging tunnels were inconsistent with
each other and with existing requirements.

We came up with an approach which we believe is both correct and
consistent with existing core Internet requirements, and highlighted
where it differs from current tunnels (standards track, informational,
or otherwise) in Section 5. At this point, we believe the core of this
document is both stable and represents not only a clear view of tunnels
as an architectural component of the Internet, but also represents the
current best practices regarding the design and use of tunnels.

_*Our request:*_

As a result, we'd like to ask the chairs to initiate a call to change
the track of this document from Informational to BCP.

The result of this decision will impact how Section 5 is resolved. If
this document becomes a BCP, that section will be fleshed out for WG
consensus. If this document remains Informational, then the
recommendations in Section 5 might not be appropriate, and will likely
need to be omitted in whole or part.

Joe

-------

Summary of 06 changes:

    - updated ECMP discussion

    - updated multipoint discussion

    - updated terminology (atom -> atomic packet)

    - revised Fig 12 and Fig 13 algorithms (it wasn't clear that this
was outer fragmentation)

------

On 5/17/2017 2:28 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 15:23:33 +0000

Hi Joe,

I read the whole document, and I think is ready for advancement in its current form
modulo the Informational -> BCP decision. I support changing the document track
from Informational to BCP, with the understanding that more work will be needed
in Section 5 if that would be the case. Thanks for this work.

Fred
[email-masked]

From: Int-area [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt

Hi, all,

At this point, I would like to ask the chairs to start a WG call to consider revising the document track, as per below.

Some history:

This document began as a set of discussions at IETF 72 in Philadelphia (2008), where a few ADs approached us to try to integrate a number of emerging tunnel efforts, with the assumption of simply integrating them. The result was an attempt to simply organize the landscape at the time.

We started that landscape as an INTAREA WG informational doc in March 2010. It took five years of discussions, both on this list and in other WGs, to realize we needed to start by explaining our understanding of the concept of a tunnel as a link (issues in 2015). At that point we realized that many existing and emerging tunnels were inconsistent with each other and with existing requirements.

We came up with an approach which we believe is both correct and consistent with existing core Internet requirements, and highlighted where it differs from current tunnels (standards track, informational, or otherwise) in Section 5. At this point, we believe the core of this document is both stable and represents not only a clear view of tunnels as an architectural component of the Internet, but also represents the current best practices regarding the design and use of tunnels.

Our request:

As a result, we'd like to ask the chairs to initiate a call to change the track of this document from Informational to BCP.

The result of this decision will impact how Section 5 is resolved. If this document becomes a BCP, that section will be fleshed out for WG consensus. If this document remains Informational, then the recommendations in Section 5 might not be appropriate, and will likely need to be omitted in whole or part.
Joe

-------

Summary of 06 changes:

    - revised Fig 12 and Fig 13 algorithms (it wasn't clear that this was outer fragmentation)

------

On 5/17/2017 2:28 PM, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:

        Authors         : Joe Touch

                          Mark Townsley

 Pages           : 52

 Date            : 2017-05-17

Abstract:

Int-area mailing list

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 15:56:02 +0000

+1 – I concur with Fred that this draft should become a BCP.  The concept of a tunnel as a link is fundamental and should be a foundational principle for how tunnels are designed/specified.

Thanks, --David

From: Int-area [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 11:24 AM
To: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt

Hi Joe,

Fred
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

From: Int-area [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-06.txt

Hi, all,

Some history:

Our request:

-------

Summary of 06 changes:

------

        Authors         : Joe Touch

                          Mark Townsley

 Pages           : 52

 Date            : 2017-05-17

Abstract:

Int-area mailing list