[forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 25 August 2014 22:31 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAF01A03F3 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x2NIkatb_3up for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8596D1A03F0 for <forces@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7PMV0o5011978; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:31:00 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([66.129.246.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7PMUvvb011949 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:30:59 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:30:57 +0100
Message-ID: <055001cfc0b4$3f3b2240$bdb166c0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac/AtDtozAT+vPO+T8OhbRWTyCRa9w==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20906.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.364-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--12.364-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 5jrCzlkkxksmMPeO88gK4MRS0pbiOfKb1Ga2L87qPQLIvQIyugvKdS7s reQJNnc7J6qGh86ry3Rf5o2DgzRHJqfKQy6fQnXCW7gz/Gbgpl4ZbpN+hw0KeybWR/bc1Fpu7dY Ge1mPXuclwVsmr/YIwUJ0IOaBXZ9CaXCfGZQxX8UP+h/WmwyDER9fNWA7SFWqCTU081fTUYJYHU JOS1uh7gAOLcBDJ5DFov5NxY7uq93C5KNFPL+ydH9NanCUA4Veu56wFPSkMVFb8pv4L0h+Iqotg acS0y4ttMYCdshxeH7cJrW3ohVKce+Tp/XbD9PcSEQN/D/3cG4KTXXD5Aduy+mGwXz0UoMoo8WM kQWv6iV95l0nVeyiuDrm2CwlZwVRIAcCikR3vq8t26D+bss0Y7tyG6giJSq4hjz7g4UoY7Ycqi5 YV+/9hcw+CP4d1ZfG
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/qinoH46Ad4Go8OxpjWUgOCnAhHQ
Cc: forces@ietf.org
Subject: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:31:06 -0000
Hi authors, I have done my usual AD review on receiving a publication request for your draft. I have a question, a request, and a suggestion. I'll put the document into "Revised I-D" state until we have resolved these issues. Thanks for the work, Adrian --- Is this really standards track and not experimental? The reason I ask is because it sounds (to me) that packet parallelization is quite an advanced feature that may have some "interesting" behavioral characteristics. If you tell me that, "this is stable, we know what we are doing, the implementations that exist are really being deployed" then I'll be happy. If you say "we have an implementation and are seeing how it behaves" then perhaps you should consider whether this is an experiment. This is a topic for discussion. You don't have to make a change until we have covered the ground and understand what we are dealing with. --- The IANA Considerations section needs some work. Please: - Name the registries where you are requesting code points. - Please request allocations (i.e. don't write descriptive text) - the values you are asking for appear to come from the Standards Action space: why mention FCFS? - Do you *need* the values you are asking for (18-20 and x10), are you suggesting them, or do you not actually care? You need to make this clear in your text. --- Some comments from the document shepherd are recorded in the write-up and should get some attention from the authors. Additionally, there is some English that could benefit from a quick re-read and some polish.
- [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-pa… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packe… Haleplidis Evangelos
- Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packe… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packe… Haleplidis Evangelos