Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 27, 2021, at 3:14 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > Christian Hopps wrote: >>> I still don't really see enough explanation of: >>> >>> 1) what do my probe packets look like? Can I, for instance, send >>> regular traffic, padded to the extra size? That's an

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Christian Hopps wrote: >> I still don't really see enough explanation of: >> >> 1) what do my probe packets look like? Can I, for instance, send >> regular traffic, padded to the extra size? That's an optimistic view >> of things, but maybe appropriate. How do I get

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 26, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > > Christian Hopps wrote: >>> Christian Hopps wrote: > * I'm glad you recommend PLMTUD, I suggest PMTUD is dead. How do > use PLMTUD? Will you tell us later in the document, or is that new > work? (does not look

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Christian Hopps wrote: >> Christian Hopps wrote: * I'm glad you recommend PLMTUD, I suggest PMTUD is dead. How do use PLMTUD? Will you tell us later in the document, or is that new work? (does not look like you tell us) >> >>> I believed it was enough

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 6:11 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for the review, q's, comments, and changes inline.. > >> On Feb 14, 2021, at 11:45 PM, Michael Richardson > > wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> >> I have read

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > Christian Hopps wrote: >>> * I'm glad you recommend PLMTUD, I suggest PMTUD is dead. How do use >>> PLMTUD? Will you tell us later in the document, or is that new work? >>> (does not look like you tell us)

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Christian Hopps wrote: >> * I'm glad you recommend PLMTUD, I suggest PMTUD is dead. How do use >> PLMTUD? Will you tell us later in the document, or is that new work? >> (does not look like you tell us) > I believed it was enough to just reference the mechanism (as we do for

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi Michael, Thanks for the review, q's, comments, and changes inline.. > On Feb 14, 2021, at 11:45 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > I have read draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs before it was adopted, and during the > adoption call, but have been busy. So I have read it again

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Lou Berger wrote: > I think you make a number of good mechanism specific technical points > that are worth addressing in the document, but I think that > recasting/redirecting this work goes too far.  This work has always > been focused on a specific application (TFS) and it's

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

I have read draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs before it was adopted, and during the adoption call, but have been busy. So I have read it again today from beginning to end before tackling the long thread that has developed. EXEC SUM: I think that the document is not ready. There are a lot of MAYs

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Christian Hopps writes: > Just to clarify, are you indicating Valery's changes should be made? > If so then I will update the document so we can continue to make > progress. I have not checked out the draft yet, so I do not have opinion about this. I was just pointing out that this is good time

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Chris, Thanks for wading through these. Incorporating these will certainly remove any issues I had. As far as the style suggestions goe, that’s fine the GENART, IESG, and RFC editor will also ask for their pound of flesh ;) Spt > On Feb 8, 2021, at 18:19, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > >>

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi Tero, Just to clarify, are you indicating Valery's changes should be made? If so then I will update the document so we can continue to make progress. Thanks, Chris. > On Feb 11, 2021, at 5:52 PM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi Tero, > > I'm sorry some of the previous

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi Tero, I'm sorry some of the previous messages HTML at some point the message got converted to that format. I actually prefer text as well. It was not my intention to say anything was too late to change, only that the WG has been discussing an IP-TFS solution for 2 years. This reorganization

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Christian Hopps writes: WGLC is not too late to do changes, it is quite early in the process, we still need to go to the IETF LC, and then through IESG etc. If making these changes now will make document easier to read, that will most likely make IETF LC and further steps easier, so it might

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi Valery, I think we're getting a bit too caught in the details, to circle back: > I think that in its current form the draft is too focused on a single > application for > the Aggregation and Fragmentation mode - IP-TFS. From architectural > point of view I'd like to see the draft first

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi Christian, I agree with what Lou with regards to it going too far to recast/redirect this work any further. I did do a round of changes based on our agreement to help with future uses, and while it's nice that this work could lead to these uses, those should be documented in another

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

As there have been a number of editorial changes (nits etc), to help any remaining reviewers here's a pointer to the current text which includes the changes made so far during the WGLC:

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 10, 2021, at 3:36 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi Christian, > >>> On Feb 8, 2021, at 6:44 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think that in its current form the draft is too focused on a single >>> application for >>> the Aggregation and Fragmentation mode - IP-TFS.

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi Christian, > > On Feb 8, 2021, at 6:44 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think that in its current form the draft is too focused on a single > > application for > > the Aggregation and Fragmentation mode - IP-TFS. From architectural > > point of view I'd like to see the draft

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 8, 2021, at 6:44 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi, > > I think that in its current form the draft is too focused on a single > application for > the Aggregation and Fragmentation mode - IP-TFS. From architectural > point of view I'd like to see the draft first defining the mechanism

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 3, 2021, at 10:38 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > Hi! I mostly just have nits, but there are a couple of questions interspersed > below. Hi Sean, Thanks so much for this very thorough review! I have made the vast majority of the suggested changes with only a few style exceptions (and

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi Valery, I think you make a number of good mechanism specific technical points that are worth addressing in the document, but I think that recasting/redirecting this work goes too far.  This work has always been focused on a specific application (TFS) and it's utility beyond that

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi, I think that in its current form the draft is too focused on a single application for the Aggregation and Fragmentation mode - IP-TFS. From architectural point of view I'd like to see the draft first defining the mechanism itself and then describing possible applications for it, focusing

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, Sean Turner wrote: s1, last para: s/IP-TFS provides for dealing with network congestion/IP-TFS addresses network congestion I dont think it "addresses" network congestion. It maybe improves dealing with network congestion ? It is not the intention of this specification

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

Hi! I mostly just have nits, but there are a couple of questions interspersed below. s1, para 1: s/While one may directly obscure the data through the use of/While directly obscuring the data with s1, para 1: s/it’s/its s1, para 3: s/IP-TFS/IP-TFS (IP Traffic Flow Security) s1, last para:

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

I approve. I have reviewed this document. Cheers, Don Fedyk -Original Message- From: IPsec On Behalf Of Tero Kivinen Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 8:55 PM To: ipsec@ietf.org Subject: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs This is the start of 3 week WGLC on the document, ending

[IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

This is the start of 3 week WGLC on the document, ending 2021-02-15. Please submit your comments to the list, also send a note if you have reviewed the document, so we can see how many people are interested in getting this out. -- kivi...@iki.fi ___