Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Thanks for the feedback.

Gorry

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> - The discard of packets serves
>    as a signal to the end-to-end transport that there may be congestion
>    on the network path being used.
>
> Why not?
>    The discard of packets serves
>    as a signal to the end-to-end transport that there is congestion
>    on the network path being used.
>
Because a loss can also be due to other reasons than congestion,
it would help to explain this. I will add.

>
> - Section 3.5.  Bleaching and Middlebox Requirements to deploy ECN
>
> Sligthly confused by ECT(0) is different the zero codepoint
>
>    When ECN-capable IP packets, marked as ECT(0) or ECT(1), are remarked
>    to non-ECN-capable (i.e., the ECN field is set to zero codepoint),
>
OK, We'll add - probably need to explain the numerical value for non-ECT,
etc.

>    ...
>
>    A network device must not change a packet with a CE mark to a zero
>    codepoint, if the network device decides not to forward the packet
>    with the CE-mark,
>
> I had to look up https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3168
>
>       +-----+-----+
>       | ECN FIELD |
>       +-----+-----+
>         ECT   CE         [Obsolete] RFC 2481 names for the ECN bits.
>          0     0         Not-ECT
>          0     1         ECT(1)
>          1     0         ECT(0)
>          1     1         CE
>
> If you had one or two sentences to introduce the codepoints, that would
> avoid the confusion and would ease the readability.
>
> And below is Dan Romascanu's OPS DIR review:
> The following three comments are editorial in nature, triggered by
> difficulties in understanding some of the information (otherwise clearly
> presented):
>
>
>
> 1.       It would be useful to break the definition of ‘ECN-capable’
> in
> two separate definitions for ‘ECN-capable packet’ and ‘ECN-capable
> network device’. It also would be good to copy or refer the definition
> of
> ECN codepoint from RFC 3168.
>
Understood, will update.

> 2.       Section 2.5 uses both CE-marking and ECN-marking terms. They are
> meant to be synonymous, so chosing one of them would make the text more
> clear
>
All should be "CE-marked", will change.

> 3.        Sections 4.3 and 5 uses the following phrase about endpoints –
> ‘it can … conservatively react to congestion’. Please explain what
> this means.
>
I'll discuss with my co-author on how to add more text here.

Gorry