[aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06: (with COMMENT)
"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 14:57 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E741B3438; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.6.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151020145733.17027.9514.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:57:33 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ykPnxoJqAbqLUnjrMpMK6pUtvtE>
Cc: draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits@ietf.org, rs@netapp.com, dromasca@avaya.com, aqm-chairs@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org
Subject: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:57:33 -0000
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. - 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), ... 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. 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 3. Sections 4.3 and 5 uses the following phrase about endpoints – ‘it can … conservatively react to congestion’. Please explain what this means.