Subject: [pmtud] Agenda (update?) for the meeting at ietf65, meeting materials, jabber, audio

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:48:46 -0500

Agenda, which has been posted for a while, but alas not to this list:
<http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/agenda/pmtud.txt>

-=-=-

Path MTU Discovery WG (pmtud)
Monday, March 20, 17:40--18:40
=====================================

CHAIRS: Matt Mathis <[email-masked]>
        Matt Zekauskas <[email-masked]>

AGENDA:

1. Agenda bashing, milestones review [5 min]

2. PMTUD method draft issues [30 min]
   --John Heffner

   <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmtud-method-06.txt>

   We think this is finally close to publication, so please read
   and bring your questions.

3. Any Other Business

-=-=-

Search for "pmtud" to find agenda and other meeting materials here:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=65>

There will be at least one update to the presentation before the meeting.

Jabber, should we get a scribe:
<http://www.ietf.org/meetings/text_conf.html>
archive: <http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/[email-masked]/>

Audiocasting: <http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/>
should be specifically: <http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf651.m3u>

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

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:13:54 -0800

This document will be presented during the Softwire working group
timeslot on Wednesday, March 22nd from 1300-1500. The abstract and
a pointer to the document are given below:

Fred
[email-masked]

Abstract

   IP-in-IP tunnels present a Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) to layer 3
   via static prearrangements and/or dynamic MTU determination based on
   layer 2 ICMP messages, but these methods have known operational
   limitations that can fail to enforce an assured MTU resulting in
   degraded performance and communications failures.  A method for
   providing an assured MTU to layer 3 over IP-in-IP tunnels is needed.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-mtuassurance-00.txt

---

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2006 09:37:24 +0100

hi,

>    and bring your questions.

this comment made me take a look at it.

i haven't been following this for a while, and i must say
that i'm very positively surprised with the way this document
has changed over the last months.

just a small question: why isn't dccp included in section 10?

cheers,
michael

---

From: John Heffner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:31:36 -0500

> just a small question: why isn't dccp included in section 10?

A couple reasons:
(1) The intent isn't to have a spec in this draft for every protocol (we 
can't).  The ones in here serve an illustrative puspose.  TCP and SCTP do 
probing in a fairly different way, so it's nice to include both.

(2) AFAIK, the DCCP spec isn't "finished" yet.  It seems like it's close, but 
it would be better not to have this as a dependency.

Any protocol should be able to write its own draft, or section of a draft, for 
PLPMTUD within that protocol.  Just because it's not in the probing-method 
draft doesn't exclude a protocol in any way.

  -John

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:55:53 +0100

> it would be better not to have this as a dependency.

The DCCP base spec is in AUTH48 and will soon be published.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]