IETF-96 Proceedings

Introduction  |  Area, Working Goup & BoF Reports  |  Plenaries  |  Training  |  Internet Research Task Force

Transport Area Working Group (tsvwg) (WG)

Minutes   |   Jabber Logs  |   Mailing List Archives

Additional information is available at


Transport Area Area Director(s):

Assigned Area Director

Status Update (provided 2016-07-18)

TSVWG has two RFCs published since IETF-95 (Buenos Aires) - SCTP-PF: Quick Failover (RFC 7829) and NAT Behavioral Reqts. Updates (RFC 7857), and two more drafts in the RFC Editor Queue - DTLS encap of SCTP (for WebRTC) and Circuit Breakers (approved after IETF-95).

There are three TSVWG drafts at the IESG: 1) The Diffserv usage by WebRTC draft is IESG-approved, but awaiting a clarification on how to deal with black-holes caused by non-zero DSCPs; for WebRTC, ICE will use STUN to check for connectivity, and details of the text are expected to be worked out during Berlin meeting week.  2) The UDP Guidelines draft is post-IETF-Last-Call, but awaiting resolution of RTO text wrt TCPM WG's RTO draft.  The TCPM WG agreed on an approach in principle at the Berlin meeting, with text details to be worked out offline, a revised draft should be ready for IESG  evaluation in August.  3) The GRE in UDP draft will be in IETF Last Call by end of Berlin meeting week.

TSVWG has completed work on the Diffserv Interconnection draft, and RFC publication will be requested soon.  Most other current TSVWG drafts are close to done - the WG chairs are planning approximately a WG Last Call per month between now and the end of 2016, including WGLC for the recently adopted draft on Diffserv mapping to 802.11 (WiFi). New work is planned to update the SCTP base spec.

ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) is a theme of proposed new TSVWG work - drafts have been proposed to TSVWG on ECN codepoint usage/semantics, and propagation of ECN at endpoints of IP-in-IP tunnels that use shim headers; in addition, recent discussion of the RTP circuit breaker (AVTCORE draft) indicates that work would be needed to specify how ECN congestion indications could be used with RTP.


Meeting Slides:

Blue Sheets:


Request for Comments:

Charter (as of 1999-10-08):

The Transport Area receives occasional proposals for the development and
publication of RFCs dealing with transport topics that are not in scope
of an existing working group or do not justify the formation of a new
working group. TSVWG will serve as the forum for developing such work
items in the IETF.

The TSVWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such work items,
when they arise. The working group meets if there are active proposals
that require discussion. The working group milestones are updated as
needed to reflect the current work items and their associated

The currently active TSVWG work items mostly fall under the
Following topics:

(A) Maintenance of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP), which involves bug fixes to the SCTP specifications and their
progression along the standards track. This work item also includes a
small number of modular extensions to SCTP. In order to maintain stable
specifications, additional work on SCTP in TSVWG requires Area Director

(B) Maintenance of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) which
involves bug fixes to RSVP specifications and their progression along
the standards track. This work item may also include a small number
of extensions to both RSVP and Integrated Services or advisory documents
to address specific application scenarios. In order to maintain stable
specifications, additional work on RSVP and/or Integrated Services in
TSVWG requires Area Director approval.

(C) Maintenance of IP Differentiated Services (DiffServ) mechanisms,
which involves mostly advisory documents on the use of DiffServ in
specific application scenarios. Other work items related to DiffServ
require Area Director approval.

(D) Selected other work items, which are mostly in TSVWG for historic

Additional work that does not fall under one of the above topics in
TSVWG must satisfy four conditions:
(1) WG consensus on the suitability and projected quality of the
proposed work item.
(2) A core group of WG participants with sufficient energy and expertise
to advance the work item according to the proposed schedule.
(3) Commitment from the WG as a whole to provide sufficient and timely
review of the proposed work item.
(4) Agreement by the ADs, who, depending on the scope of the proposed
work item, may decide that an IESG review is needed first.