Subject: [tsvwg] Comments requested on adoption of draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover-05 as a TSVWG draft

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:26:14 +0100

All,

The TSVWG is considering adopting the following draft as a working group 
document for publication as PS:

   Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP
   draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover-05
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover/

This draft has been discussed at previous IETF meetings and is thought 
to not conflict with any current or planned IETF work. It also appears 
to fall within the charter of this WG. Please state your opinion, 
positive or negative, on the mailing list or to the chairs. This 
consensus call will end on June 26, 2012.

Regards,

Gorry Fairhurst & James Polk
(TSVWG Co-Chairs)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF TSVWG working group mailing list

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:18:07 +0200

On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> All,
> 
> The TSVWG is considering adopting the following draft as a working group document for publication as PS:
> 
> This draft has been discussed at previous IETF meetings and is thought to not conflict with any current or planned IETF work. It also appears to fall within the charter of this WG. Please state your opinion, positive or negative, on the mailing list or to the chairs. This consensus call will end on June 26, 2012.
I think this should be adopted as a WG item. I read it, provided comments and I'm
willing to review upcoming versions.
This current version has also been implemented in FreeBSD.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:19:24 +0200

I have read the draft and I find it very interesting for improving SCTP when
dealing with network failures. I agree with adopting it as a WG item.

Some small things which could be corrected:

- First paragraph of Section 4.2:

"During failover process.  RTO keeps being doubled."

"During failover process,  RTO keeps being doubled."

- First paragraph of page 8:

"SCTP MUST NOT send any notification to the upper layer about the active to
PF state transition."

"SCTP MUST NOT send any notification to the upper layer about the Active to
PF state transition."

There are some other places talking about "active state". In contrast,
"Inactive state" is always capitalized.

- There are two places where "primary path" is called "primacy path".

- Section 5.3:

"however, it will require more detail analysis since it might  impact on
SCTP failover algorithm."

"however, it will require more detailed analysis since it might  impact on
SCTP failover algorithm."

Best regards,

Jose

-----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de
Michael Tuexen
Enviado el: martes, 26 de junio de 2012 10:18
Para: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [tsvwg] Comments requested on adoption of
draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover-05 as a TSVWG draft

document for publication as PS:

>   <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover/>

> This draft has been discussed at previous IETF meetings and is thought to
not conflict with any current or planned IETF work. It also appears to fall
within the charter of this WG. Please state your opinion, positive or
negative, on the mailing list or to the chairs. This consensus call will end
on June 26, 2012.

I think this should be adopted as a WG item. I read it, provided comments
and I'm willing to review upcoming versions.

Best regards

Michael

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:21:35 +0200

- Section 5.3:

Best regards,

Jose

-----Mensaje original-----

document for publication as PS:

Best regards

Michael

---

From: Randy Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:07:49 -0400

+1 and yes I will review/read and provide comments

R

>> Gorry Fairhurst & James Polk

-----
Randall Stewart
[email-masked]

-----
Randall Stewart
[email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:32:28 +0300

Hi,

I believe that this work addresses a very important need for more efficient failover process in SCTP.
I fully support to adopt this work as a tsvwg item and would be willing to support further work on the draft.

BR, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gorry Fairhurst
Sent: 26. juni 2012 09:26
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [tsvwg] Comments requested on adoption of draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover-05 as a TSVWG draft

All,

Regards,