Subject: [rddp] RDDP status of drafts

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 03:12:41 -0500

Here's what the WG chair believes the current status of
drafts in the RDDP WG to be (if anything seems wrong here,
please let me know):

IETF RDDP WG Draft Status - March 2004, Seoul IETF meetings
-----------------------------------------------------------

-- Problem Statement and Architecture

draft-ietf-rddp-problem-statement-03.txt
draft-ietf-rddp-arch-04.txt

To become Informational RFCs.

Finished WG Last Call, and have been revised to respond to comments
from our Area Director.  Further IESG discussion has generated
additional comments that will require further revisions.

-- Main Protocols

DDP (draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-02.txt)
RDMAP (draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap-01.txt)

To become Proposed Standard RFCs.

No technical issues meriting substantial meeting time.  Waiting
on security draft (which will probably generate revisions to
the security considerations sections in these drafts)
before going to WG Last Call

-- Applicability Statement

draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-01.txt

To become an Informational RFC.

Believed to be in good shape - please review.

-- SCTP Mapping

draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-00.txt

To become a Proposed Standard RFC.

Despite the -00 version number, this is the fourth version of this draft,
and
it is relatively mature.

-- TCP Mapping

draft-ietf-rddp-mpa-00.txt

To become an Informational RFC.

The major open issues in this draft involve connection initiation/
startup.  Substantial meeting time allocated to make progress.

draft-cully-mpa-issuesresponses-00.txt

Will not become an RFC.  This draft describes issues raised about
MPA and the views of the MPA authors on those issues.

-- Security

draft-ietf-rddp-security-01.txt

Whether this will be Informational vs. Proposed Standard is TBD.
This draft is on the critical path to completing the DDP and RDMAP
drafts.  Substantial meeting time has been allocated to it.

_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:45:54 -0600

On Mar 2, 2004, at 2:12 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> and it is relatively mature.

Earlier I raised the question as to whether the TCP and
SCTP adaptations should be brought into alignment on
support for Active-Active session initiation.

I believe the consensus from reflector discussion was that
it was not worthwhile to add this functionality to MPA/TCP.

I suggest a quick poll at the WG meeting and/or reflector as
to whether the Active-Active support should be removed from
the SCTP mapping. As that legal sessions are defined by an
enumeration of legal patterns, removing one is a very simple
edit should that be the consensus.

I personally remain ambivalent on the issue, seeing both the
merits of flexibility and of eliminating test cases.