Hi, Christian, > On Aug 19, 2025, at 9:23 PM, Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reading the draft, I felt one missing reference -- RFC 9484, Proxying IP in > HTTP. I suppose that's a consequence of the publication hiatus.
Glad to add that. > By the way, I understand the focus on IP tunnelling, but from an architecture > point of view it would be interesting to study the spectrum of solutions > between "tunneling" and "proxying". HTTP proxying is well established. Tor > use of onion routing is another interesting data point. The Masque WG has > been working on a variety of "foo over QUIC" solutions, besides the "IP in > HTTP3" subset of RFC 9484. These include proxying UDP in RFC 9298, proxying > Ethernet in HTTP in draft-ietf-masque-connect-ethernet, and QUIC-Aware > Proxying Using HTTP in draft-ietf-masque-quic-proxy-06. The latter includes > discussion of many of the points made in the "IP Tunnels" draft, including > enabling cascading of proxies without adding per-proxy overhead, allowing > end-to-end congestion control without interference from proxying, or allowing > end-to-end MTU discovery. The WG is still debating details, including how to > handle ECN. I agree; there are three ways to internetwork: (native) packet relay, tunneling, and proxying. Each one is progressively more complex and less capable, but also provides more opportunity for adaptation. But that seems outside the scope of this document and destined for a broader treatment. I don’t know if the IETF is the place for that - it took this long to get here (granted part was my hiatus, but the bulk of the delay was between someone thinking it was a good idea to pursue and getting community traction). > Speaking of ECN, the transport area is working on the "next generation" ECN > with projects like L4S. That too seems like a missing reference. Agreed - worth noting as well. I’ll roll in the two above part of the next rev, once feedback is closed. Joe > > -- Christian Huitema > > On 8/8/2025 11:40 AM, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: >> >> I think Jon Postel, Bob Braden and many other Internet founders would have >> approved. >> >> Fred >> >> *From:*[email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2025 10:22 AM >> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected]; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Juan Carlos >> Zuniga (juzuniga) <[email protected]>; Internet Area <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] WGLC for "IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture" >> draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels >> >> Per the Madrid recorded presentation: >> >> Requested by the IESG, March 2007 >> >> * First version draft-touch July 2007 >> * Discussions begin… >> >> INTAREA adoption July 2010 >> >> * Significant revision 2015, with figures and revised terminology >> * Another significant revision 2016, with more figures and expanded >> terminology >> >> Largely complete by 2018 >> >> * Then a hiatus due to job shift >> >> — >> >> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist >> >> www.strayalpha.com <http://www.strayalpha.com> >> >> >> >> On Aug 8, 2025, at 10:08 AM, Templin (US), Fred L >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Unfortunately it has been (probably unnecessarily ) delayed for a long >> time. >> >> It looks like this document became an intarea WG item in March >> 2010; maybe it >> >> was ahead of its time, and the time has now arrived. >> >> Fred >> >> *From:*Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2025 9:26 AM >> *To:* Ron Bonica <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) >> <[email protected]>; Internet Area >> <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Int-area] Re: WGLC for "IP Tunnels in the >> Internet Architecture" draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels >> >> >> >> >> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. >> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:31 PM Ron Bonica >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> This is an excellent overview of tunnel technology. However, I >> wonder if the publication of this draft will change anyone's >> behavior. If not, I wonder if the IETF stream is the right >> place for this document. Maybe the independent stream is more >> appropriate? Maybe the Internet Protocol Journal or a blog? >> Maybe even a chapter in a textbook? >> >> I think it should be published as an RFC as It has originally been >> intended to. Unfortunately it has been (probably unnecessarily ) >> delayed for a long time. >> >> Behcet >> >> Ron >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) >> <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 1:41 AM >> *To:* Internet Area <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* [Int-area] WGLC for "IP Tunnels in the Internet >> Architecture" draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels >> >> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* >> >> Dear IntArea WG, >> >> The authors of Draft >> _https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-15 >> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-15__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AST0foNqNIWijq2ReXb3w8D4mUd3Sx53MI5Quv7oqyWSY5IiiLSevttp23VbJW6DPwYlIGVUjeYKV6KJK2lGv0LA3FpSqC0$>_are >> requesting a WGLC. The latest draft was presented at IETF >> 123and we heard some comments from the floor. >> >> Hence, we are starting now a 2-week WG Last Call. We would >> like to receive at least 5 substantial reviews to move forward. >> >> Please express your support/comments by replying to this >> email. To compensate for the summer break, the call will end >> on Friday the 22ndof August(AoE). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Juan-Carlos & Wassim >> >> (IntArea WG chairs) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
