headers
Gorry Fairhurst | 1 Mar 2011 19:36
Picon
Picon

Updated TSVWG: session conflict list


David, we've trimmed the list as follows:

Level 1: iccrg, 6man ecrit geopriv sipcore tcpm conex ledbat mptcp
  mmusic mboned dccp

Level 2: multimob v6ops behave dispatch tmrg pim storm alto
atoca pcn ccamp

Please avoid all other TSV area sessions, including tsvarea.

Note for the next meeting the following will also change:

DISPATCH will move up to a level 1
DCCP will move down to a level 2,
SIPCORE will move down to a level 2

- Do you want to get some of this captured in the meetings tool, so it 
doesn't get lost?

Gorry
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
James M. Polk | 1 Mar 2011 20:01
Picon
Favicon

WGLC ends for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26

WG

There has been sufficient, albeit late, reviews and comments for the 
chairs to consider the WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26 done.

Authors - please incorporate those comments made during into a -27 
version and post this version, which the chairs will forward to the 
ADs for their consideration for RFC publication.

James & Gorry
TSVWG chairs
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Harrington | 1 Mar 2011 20:51
Picon

RE: Updated TSVWG: session conflict list

If you can enter it there, that would be helpful.
Let me know if that is a problem.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry <at> erg.abdn.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 1:37 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: tsvwg WG
> Subject: Updated TSVWG: session conflict list
> 
> 
> David, we've trimmed the list as follows:
> 
> Level 1: iccrg, 6man ecrit geopriv sipcore tcpm conex ledbat mptcp
>   mmusic mboned dccp
> 
> Level 2: multimob v6ops behave dispatch tmrg pim storm alto
> atoca pcn ccamp
> 
> Please avoid all other TSV area sessions, including tsvarea.
> 
> Note for the next meeting the following will also change:
> 
> DISPATCH will move up to a level 1
> DCCP will move down to a level 2,
> SIPCORE will move down to a level 2
> 
> - Do you want to get some of this captured in the meetings
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Tüxen | 1 Mar 2011 21:07
Picon

Re: WGLC ends for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26

On Mar 1, 2011, at 8:01 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> WG
> 
> There has been sufficient, albeit late, reviews and comments for the chairs to consider the WGLC for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26 done.
> 
> Authors - please incorporate those comments made during into a -27 version and post this version, which
the chairs will forward to the ADs for their consideration for RFC publication.
Hi James,

Done.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> James & Gorry
> TSVWG chairs
> 
>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Magnus Westerlund | 2 Mar 2011 08:50
Picon
Favicon

Re: Updated TSVWG: session conflict list

Hi,

I think AVTCore belongs on Level 2 currently due to the ECN for RTP work
ongoing in that WG that seem relevant for TSVWG.

Cheers

Magnus

Gorry Fairhurst skrev 2011-03-01 19:36:
> 
> David, we've trimmed the list as follows:
> 
> Level 1: iccrg, 6man ecrit geopriv sipcore tcpm conex ledbat mptcp
>   mmusic mboned dccp
> 
> Level 2: multimob v6ops behave dispatch tmrg pim storm alto
> atoca pcn ccamp
> 
> Please avoid all other TSV area sessions, including tsvarea.
> 
> Note for the next meeting the following will also change:
> 
> DISPATCH will move up to a level 1
> DCCP will move down to a level 2,
> SIPCORE will move down to a level 2
> 
> - Do you want to get some of this captured in the meetings tool, so it 
> doesn't get lost?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Cullen Jennings | 2 Mar 2011 22:35
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [dccp] WGLC for draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap


I'm wondering what would be the downside of saying the UDP source / dest port had to match the DCCP source and
dest port?  This would make it much easier to figure out hot to integrate this into something like ICE or
decide what UDP and DCCP ports one uses for a URL like sip:example.com:5060

On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> We just started DCCP WG last call on draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap that specifies UDP encapsulation for DCCP
packets (see pointer below). The issue of UDP encapsulation was discussed earlier also on this list, so
people might be interested to read the draft. Please send comments to the DCCP mailing list
<dccp <at> ietf.org> by March 11.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - Pasi
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti <at> iki.fi>
>> Date: February 25, 2011 12:56:46 PM GMT+02:00
>> To: 'dccp' working group <dccp <at> ietf.org>
>> Subject: [dccp] WGLC for draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This mail starts a working group last call for the UDP encapsulation draft. The draft is available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-06 . Please read the draft and send any
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Randy Stewart | 3 Mar 2011 03:55

Re: [dccp] WGLC for draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap

Cullen:

(not having read the draft.. :0)

Your idea makes me wonder... would that not also pollute the UDP port space? After all then
you are burning a UDP port for every DCCP (or am I mis-understanding you)? If not this
seems a waste..

R
On Mar 2, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 
> I'm wondering what would be the downside of saying the UDP source / dest port had to match the DCCP source and
dest port?  This would make it much easier to figure out hot to integrate this into something like ICE or
decide what UDP and DCCP ports one uses for a URL like sip:example.com:5060
> 
> 
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> We just started DCCP WG last call on draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap that specifies UDP encapsulation for
DCCP packets (see pointer below). The issue of UDP encapsulation was discussed earlier also on this list,
so people might be interested to read the draft. Please send comments to the DCCP mailing list
<dccp <at> ietf.org> by March 11.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> - Pasi
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pasi Sarolahti | 3 Mar 2011 10:48
Picon
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [dccp] WGLC for draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap

Hi Cullen,

(cc:ing dccp mailing list as well)

The dccp/udp port issues were discussed in the DCCP WG some time ago. With the source port one problem is that
a NAT could change the UDP port but not the inner DCCP port. There were opinions for keeping the two port
spaces separate, to support tunneling scenarios through a well-known UDP port at the server end.

- Pasi

On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> I'm wondering what would be the downside of saying the UDP source / dest port had to match the DCCP source and
dest port?  This would make it much easier to figure out hot to integrate this into something like ICE or
decide what UDP and DCCP ports one uses for a URL like sip:example.com:5060
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
James M. Polk | 7 Mar 2011 03:13
Picon
Favicon

Call for Agenda items for IETF 80 (Prague)

TSVWG

We chairs are asking TSVWG for requests to present IDs during our 
session.  You need to give us your name, the ID you want to present 
material from, and the amount of time you would like to have to 
present (generally at 10 min slot per preso).

Presentations will have the following priority:

1 - TSVWG items
2 - Items positively discussed at previous meetings
3 - new work of interest to the WG

Please send your request to BOTH chairs (so each has a record of it).

James & Gorry
TSVWG Chairs
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randall Stewart | 7 Mar 2011 23:34

Fwd: SCTP API document..

All:

A bit late but Kirk did finally reply..

I answered his query about the deprecated features... I am not sure
if we can do anything about the way bindx works...

The non-mention of the replacement for the deprecated interface is probably
an easy fix.

R

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Kirk McKusick
> Date: March 7, 2011 4:40:05 PM EST
> To: Randall Stewart <rrs <at> lakerest.net>
> Subject: Re: SCTP API document.. 
> 
>> From: Randall Stewart <rrs <at> lakerest.net>
>> Subject: Re: SCTP API document.. 
>> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:00:06 -0500
>> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick <at> mckusick.com>
>> 
>> Kirk:
>> 
>> Your input would be appreciated... You might want to just
>> scan the document.. its pretty large ;-0
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane