Subject: [tsvwg] New draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:12:52 +0100

tsvwg chairs, and tsvwg list,

I've revised draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines twice today.
All the items I promised to update are now updated, and all the open 
issues listed in the appendix are closed off.
It's had a number of reviews during its long life (started 2011), but it 
probably needs at least one more final look.

So I believe it is now ready for a last call, for which I hope we can 
get a volunteer fresh pair of eyes to check it over.
The intarea chairs have added a brief heads-up on this to their longlist 
for their Berlin agenda, but no confirmation published yet. We might get 
a volunteer to review from that.

A list of all the deltas between -05 & -07 follows:

       *  Introduction: Added GUE and Geneve as examples of tightly
          coupled shims between IP headers that cite RFC 6040.  And added
          VXLAN to list of those that do not.

       *  Replaced normative text about tightly coupled shims between IP
          headers, with reference to new draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis

       *  Wire Protocol Design: Indication of ECN Support: Added TRILL as
          an example of a well-design protocol that does not need an
          indication of ECN support in the wire protocol.

       *  Encapsulation Guidelines: In the case of a Not-ECN-PDU with a
          CE outer, replaced SHOULD be dropped, with explanations of when
          SHOULD or MUST are appropriate.

       *  Feed-Up-and-Forward Mode: Explained examples more carefully,
          referred to PDCP and cited UTRAN spec as well as E-UTRAN.

       *  Added the people involved in liaisons to the acknowledgements.

       *  Updated references.

       *  Marked open issues as resolved, but did not delete Open Issues
          Appendix (yet).

Cheers

Bob

On 08/07/16 22:59, [email-masked] wrote:
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Bob Briscoe and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:		draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines
> Revision:	07
> Title:		Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP
> Document date:	2016-07-08
> Group:		tsvwg
> Pages:		34
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07
>
> Abstract:
>     The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion
>     notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that
>     encapsulates IP.  The aim is for explicit congestion signals to
>     propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP.  Then the
>     IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
>     congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
>     transport layer (L4).  Following these guidelines should assure
>     interworking between new lower layer congestion notification
>     mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies.
>
>                                                                                    
>
>
> 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.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:01:29 +0100

Gorry,

Att'd are draft slides for tsvwg on Wed.
(pending co-author review - I'll let you know if any changes arise)

Contained therein some questions for you as chairs:
Q1. 3GPP: Ought we to send send a final formal liaison, giving pointers 
to advice?
If so, I will draft it.

Q2. In the appendix listing outstanding issues 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07#appendix-A>, 
I've said both can be closed, and given their resolutions.
Do you agree?:

    Appendix A
    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07#appendix-A>.
    Outstanding Document Issues

    1.  [GF] Concern that certain guidelines warrant a MUST (NOT) rather

        than a SHOULD (NOT).  Given the guidelines say that if any SHOULD
        (NOT)s are not followed, a strong justification will be needed,
        they have been left as SHOULD (NOT) pending further list
        discussion.  In particular:

        *  If inner is a Not-ECN-PDU and Outer is CE (or highest severity
           congestion level), MUST (not SHOULD) drop?

           This issue has been addressed by explaining when SHOULD or
           MUST is appropriate [in first bullet of section 5.4. 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-06#section-5.4>].

    2.  Consider whether an IETF Standard Track doc will be needed to
        Update the IP-in-IP protocols listed in Section 5.1--at least
        those that the IETF controls--and which Area it should sit under.

        This issue has been addressed by the production of
        [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis], but this text is left outstanding
        until that draft is adopted.

Q3. Can draft-briscoe-tsvwg-rfc6040bis be fast-tracked?
   (it contains the same text as was in the larger ecn-encap BCP that 
has already been widely reviewed. Now just in a smaller PS container.)

Regards

Bob

On 08/07/16 23:12, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> It's had a number of reviews during its long life (started 2011), but 
> it probably needs at least one more final look.
>
> The intarea chairs have added a brief heads-up on this to their 
> longlist for their Berlin agenda, but no confirmation published yet. 
> We might get a volunteer to review from that.
>
>> URL: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07.txt
>> Status: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/
>> Htmlized: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07
>> Diff: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07
>>
>> Abstract: