David, With regards to ECN being implemented for traffic to/from Cloud DCs, do you have any references? Can you suggest some text for the document? The document is the RTGwg document. Greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much, Linda >>> IPsec tunnels are over public internet, which doesn't support ECN. Why need >>> to mention RFC6040? >> David> Disagree - L4S (on which a lot of recent work has been expended in >> TSVWG) is absolutely intended for deployment over the public Internet and >> uses ECN. > [Linda] None of Cloud DCs have implemented ECN. I am afraid ECN is not > relevant to connecting on-prem workloads with Cloud DCs. Firmly disagree - L4S (see RFCs 9330, 9331 and 9332) is likely to be implemented for traffic to/from Cloud DCs. A "not relevant" statement for ECN (which implies never will be relevant) is not acceptable. From: Black, David <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 9:34 AM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Black, David <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Request WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-24 They are not acceptable - see ECN concern in other email. Thanks, --David From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 4:59 PM To: Black, David; rtgwg-chairs Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Request WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-24 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] David, Please let us know if the comment resolutions sent to you after Version -24 are acceptable. Thank you, Linda From: Black, David <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 2:43 PM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Black, David <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: Request WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-24 > draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-24 has addressed all the > comments and suggestions from RTGDIR, OPSDIR, SECDIR, TSVART, DNSDIR and > GENART. That's not correct for the TSVART review ... but I'm willing to raise the remaining concerns as WGLC comments if WGLC is started on the -24 version. Thanks, --David From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 3:39 PM To: rtgwg-chairs Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Request WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-24 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Jeff and YingZhen, draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-24 has addressed all the comments and suggestions from RTGDIR, OPSDIR, SECDIR, TSVART, DNSDIR and GENART. We think the draft is ready for WGLC. Can you please start the WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-24? Thank you very much, Linda, Andy, Christian, Mehmet, and Kausik.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
