[Detnet] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08

Ralf Weber via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 06 February 2022 14:30 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ralf Weber via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: int-dir@ietf.org
Cc: detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <164415781002.3978.5883868989371563330@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Ralf Weber <rweber@akamai.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 06:30:10 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/dK1jgom-fo0OlK74FHUlncoyL80>
Subject: [Detnet] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08

Reviewer: Ralf Weber
Review result: Ready with Nits

Moin!

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/

The draft is very detailed, well written and covers the subject exhaustively. I
think it is ready for publication.

The biggest problem I had was reading all the formulas, that because of the
limitations of being published as an RFC can't be printed nice as you would see
them in a math book. And while they are correct (with one exception) I think
they would be more readable if they had parentheses for groups especially when
going over multiple lines like e.g on page 13:

      backlog_bound = nb_input_ports * max_packet_length + total_in_rate
      * max_delay456

IMHO would be nicer as:

      backlog_bound = ( nb_input_ports * max_packet_length  ) +
                                  ( total_in_rate * max_delay456 )

there is on error on page 19 where the opening parentheses is missing:

      T_A = L_nA + b_h + r_h * L_n/c)/(c-r_h)

could be:

      T_A = ( L_nA + b_h + ( r_h * L_n/c )) / ( c-r_h )

or at least has to be:

      T_A = (L_nA + b_h + r_h * L_n/c)/(c-r_h)

we may have rules formulas in the IETF for this which might be different from
my examples and if we do we should of course follow them, but at least I don't
know of them.

Another nit was that on page 10 there is a description of a T-Spec (Traffice
Specification) of a DeNet flow that is defined in RFC9016 as:
        "Interval: tau, MaxPacketsPerInterval: K, MaxPacketSize: L"
however using the terms defined in RFC9016 section 5.5 it should be:
        "Interval: tau, MaxPacketsPerInterval: K, MaxPayloadSize: L"

Overall I'd like to thank the authors for a very well written document.

So long
-Ralf

[Detnet] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-de… Ralf Weber via Datatracker
Re: [Detnet] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mohammadpour Ehsan