Subject: [tsvwg] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt] - new text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:49:29 +0100

Lars and I just submitted a new revision of this ID.

This is a result of discussion with Mark Alman on the topic of advice for
using timers with UDP protocols/application and the pending issue
presented at TSVWG in Berlin  (Mark's work on TCP timer usage was
discussed in TCPM at the last IETF meeting). After working through the
points in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis, Mark volunteered improved text for
section 3.1 - Thanks Mark for helping to get the wording correct.

We hope this new text resolves the issue and we can now move forward.

Gorry, Lars and Greg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Title           : UDP Usage Guidelines
        Authors         : Lars Eggert
                          Godred Fairhurst
                          Greg Shepherd
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt
	Pages           : 58
	Date            : 2016-09-14

Abstract:
   The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) provides a minimal message-passing
   transport that has no inherent congestion control mechanisms.  This
   document provides guidelines on the use of UDP for the designers of
   applications, tunnels and other protocols that use UDP.  Congestion
   control guidelines are a primary focus, but the document also
   provides guidance on other topics, including message sizes,
   reliability, checksums, middlebox traversal, the use of ECN, DSCPs,
   and ports.

   Because congestion control is critical to the stable operation of the
   Internet, applications and other protocols that choose to use UDP as
   an Internet transport must employ mechanisms to prevent congestion
   collapse and to establish some degree of fairness with concurrent
   traffic.  They may also need to implement additional mechanisms,
   depending on how they use UDP.

   Some guidance is also applicable to the design of other protocols
   (e.g., protocols layered directly on IP or via IP-based tunnels),
   especially when these protocols do not themselves provide congestion
   control.

   This document obsoletes RFC5405 and adds guidelines for multicast UDP
   usage.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17

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: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:30:07 -0500

Hi, Gorry,

> We hope this new text resolves the issue and we can now move forward.

I hope so, too, of course!

I'm not seeing any responses to this on the TSVWG mailing list. Is this
ready to go?

I'm assuming we're close, so getting ready to put this on a telechat
agenda. I've been copied on (most of?) the discussion since IETF Last Call,
so I'm not surprised at the changes in
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt&url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt.
Thanks for that.

It's in previous versions, too, but

   required when operating over the general.

should be

   required when operating over the general Internet.

The authors can fix that (quickly) if they agree, or I can put it in my Yes
ballot when we start IESG Evaluation (but reviewers who are assigned to
re-review at telechat time may also notice it and complain). Please let me
know which you prefer.

Spencer

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:02:10 -0500

Hi, Draft Shepherd,

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Black, David <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
> As draft shepherd, I believe that the timer-related issues were the only
> technical item needing resolution after Berlin.
>
> With the rewritten text in 3.1.1 having resolved those issues, I t think
> this draft is ready to go.
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David
>

Oh, thank you!

I'll give Lars a chance to reply, and then do the right thing based on his
response.

Spencer

>
>
> *From:* tsvwg [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Spencer
> Dawkins at IETF
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:30 PM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt]
> - new text
>
>
>
> Hi, Gorry,
>
>
>
> so I'm not surprised at the changes in https://tools.ietf.org/
> rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt&url2=draft-
> ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt. Thanks for that.
>
>
>
> The authors can fix that (quickly) if they agree, or I can put it in my
> Yes ballot when we start IESG Evaluation (but reviewers who are assigned to

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:59:15 +0000

Hi Spencer,

> I'm not seeing any responses to this on the TSVWG mailing list. Is this ready to go?

As draft shepherd, I believe that the timer-related issues were the only technical item needing resolution after Berlin.
With the rewritten text in 3.1.1 having resolved those issues, I t think this draft is ready to go.

Thanks, --David

From: tsvwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt] - new text

Hi, Gorry,

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:49 AM, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

I'm not seeing any responses to this on the TSVWG mailing list. Is this ready to go?

I'm assuming we're close, so getting ready to put this on a telechat agenda. I've been copied on (most of?) the discussion since IETF Last Call, so I'm not surprised at the changes in https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt&url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-17.txt. Thanks for that.

should be

The authors can fix that (quickly) if they agree, or I can put it in my Yes ballot when we start IESG Evaluation (but reviewers who are assigned to re-review at telechat time may also notice it and complain). Please let me know which you prefer.

Spencer

Gorry, Lars and Greg

Abstract:

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>.