Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Integrate QUIC DPLPMTUD text #3695

Closed
martinthomson opened this issue May 26, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3702
Closed

Integrate QUIC DPLPMTUD text #3695

martinthomson opened this issue May 26, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3702
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.

Comments

@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

It turns out that coordinating the publication of all the documents is a real challenge. Right now, DPLPMTUD depends on QUIC, which is fine, but it turns out that this is a problem for other things that depend on DPLPMTUD who now transitively depend on QUIC. QUIC could adopt the DPLPMTUD text that is specific to QUIC and loosen this dependency chain.

The text changes are relatively modest, see #3693.

While this could be editorial, I think that this will require a consensus call. The nature of the changes is such that it should be treated as design. Also, I think that there are substantive changes required.

@martinthomson martinthomson linked a pull request May 26, 2020 that will close this issue
@mnot mnot added the design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. label May 26, 2020
@mnot mnot added this to Design Issues in Late Stage Processing May 26, 2020
@gloinul
Copy link
Contributor

gloinul commented May 26, 2020

So from an AD perspective, draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud is currently blocking another document (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/) from being published that has a missref on it. Except for this question of QUIC I am ready to approve draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud.

To me it is also clear that integration of DPLPMTUD done in the QUIC WG will result in less editorial clarity issues that potentially could make an future implementer uncertain. As can already been seen in the PR there a few question that potentially can improve the operation and not unnecessary restrict the operation of DPLPMTUD.

From my perspective it looks like the core is a set of minor editorial issues to resolve that will make the DPLPMTUD be clearer and resolve the missref issue and function as well as keeping it in the TSVWG document would. If a little bit more effort is invested after the first step then there is potential for additional improvements.

@janaiyengar janaiyengar added the proposal-ready An issue which has a proposal that is believed to be ready for a consensus call. label Jun 1, 2020
@project-bot project-bot bot moved this from Design Issues to Consensus Emerging in Late Stage Processing Jun 1, 2020
@LPardue LPardue added call-issued An issue that the Chairs have issued a Consensus call for. and removed proposal-ready An issue which has a proposal that is believed to be ready for a consensus call. labels Jun 2, 2020
@project-bot project-bot bot moved this from Consensus Emerging to Consensus Call issued in Late Stage Processing Jun 2, 2020
@LPardue LPardue added has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list. and removed call-issued An issue that the Chairs have issued a Consensus call for. labels Jun 7, 2020
@project-bot project-bot bot moved this from Consensus Call issued to Consensus Declared in Late Stage Processing Jun 7, 2020
Late Stage Processing automation moved this from Consensus Declared to Issue Handled Jun 9, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. has-consensus An issue that the Chairs have determined has consensus, by canvassing the mailing list.
Projects
Late Stage Processing
  
Issue Handled
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants