... 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 protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
