Subject: [PANRG] PANRG@IETF112: call for presentations

From: Jen Linkova <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:39:27 +1100

Hello,

We still have available slots on the agenda for the IETF112 PANRG session.
The group will meet on thursday, 11 November 2021 1600-1800 UTC.
Please talk to the chairs if you'd like to present or have any agenda
suggestions.
Thanks!

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

---

From: Nicolas Kuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 16:17:02 +0200

Dear PANRG,

We have uploaded an updated version of the draft on "Enhancing Transport
Protocols over Satellite Networks".
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-tsvwg-transport-for-satellite/

While this document may look transport-centric, we have started to exploit
the PANRG terminology document [I-D.irtf-panrg-path-properties] to describe
SATCOM systems.

We aim at updating the document as follows : we need to further work on
properly exploiting the PANRG terminology in the whole document.
Transport being path-aware of the properties of SATCOM systems could
exploit the proposed transport mechanisms.

Do you think this document can be adopted under the PANRG umbrella ?

Kind regards,

Nicolas

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:39 AM Jen Linkova <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Panrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:21:17 -0500

Hi, Jen,

> Please talk to the chairs if you'd like to present or have any agenda

I'm assuming that we may have a revised version of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-panrg-questions/ before the
meeting, but, either way,

I believe that we requested publication on -07, and Brian has done some
revisions since then, mostly as the result of IRSG reviews. We're now at
-10.

AFAIK, we've kept the RG in the loop, but is it worth reviewing
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-irtf-panrg-questions-07.txt&url2=draft-irtf-panrg-questions-10.txt
?

This draft is (I believe) about to go off to the IESG for conflict review,
when it's updated to -11, so this is likely the last change the RG has, to
make sure the document says what it should say.

Please advise!

Best,

Spencer as document shepherd

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:34:04 -0500

Hi, Jen and Brian,

> Please talk to the chairs if you'd like to present or have any agenda

I did a presentation at IETF 111 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-panrg-path-selection-for-multiple-paths-stepping-back-resized-for-meetecho-processing-00)
about path selection strategies (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawkins-quic-multipath-selection/),
and I came away with a sense that the RG agreed that at least some aspects
of multipath are in scope as research topics.

There's been quite a lot of recent activity in the QUIC working group on
multipath (a QUIC multipath extension draft, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmbdhk-quic-multipath/, and a new
draft on QUIC multipath use cases, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-quic-mpquic-usecase/).

In addition, TSVWG has adopted
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp/, so this
isn't just a topic that involves QUIC.

I think it would be good to have a presentation that level-sets where we
are with recent IETF work, and starts to propose research topics that would
be in scope for PANRG.

Does that seem like a good use of our time? If so, I'd be happy to do that.

Best,

Spencer