Subject: [tsvwg] Adoption of diffserv-intercon and rfc5405bis drafts

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 00:33:37 +0000

Having seen no further comment on this matter:

> 2) The sense of the room in Honolulu was to adopt the following two
> 	drafts as WG drafts:
> 
>       DiffServ interconnection classes and practice
> 	draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/
> 
>       UDP Usage Guidelines
>       draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/
> 
>       Absent objection on the list, these drafts will be adopted.
>       Please comment by November 30.

These drafts have been adopted by the tsvwg WG.  Would the authors
please submit -00 draft-ietf-tsvwg- versions with no change of text
from the latest individual submission version?

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Black, David
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:48 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [tsvwg] Draft Honolulu minutes posted
> 
> ... before I get on the plane out of here!
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-tsvwg
> 
> Many thanks to Aaron Falk and Joel Halpern for taking notes, as
> there were lively discussions in both sessions that were not easy
> to follow.  They captured everything important.
> 
> Here are some important items that people should know about:
> 
> 1) There are a number of expired WG drafts that need author attention:
> 	ECN Encapsulation Guidelines
> 	NAT Behavioral Requirements Updates
> 	RSVP Multiple Instance Object
> 	SCTP NAT Support
> 
> 2) The sense of the room in Honolulu was to adopt the following two
> 	drafts as WG drafts:
> 
>       DiffServ interconnection classes and practice
> 	draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/
> 
>       UDP Usage Guidelines
>       draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/
> 
>       Absent objection on the list, these drafts will be adopted.
>       Please comment by November 30.
> 
> 3) The meeting determined that there is no WG rough consensus
>       for requiring use of the full UDP checksum for GRE-in-UDP
>       with IPv6.  The design team will continue work on when
>       zero checksum is acceptable (as well as congestion
>       considerations).
> 
> 4) See the minutes for the lengthy and interesting discussion of the
>       tunnel congestion feedback draft.  There is one important issue
> 	that needs to be followed up across the TSVWG and AQM WGs (aqm
>       list cc:'d for this reason):
> 
>       OPEN ISSUE *1: Should ECN indications (CE) be treated as equivalent
>       to drops?  This also came  up in AQM.  This is primarily about
>       endpoint (or tunnel egress) reaction to CE.
> 
> Enjoy,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>