[Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 31 December 2011 21:50 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3B421F84B8 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:50:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03-o2b-7xQmv for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DFD21F8476 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAB7CAEDC for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FD01C0879; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-50-89.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85BF91C0859; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EFF838D.5020704@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:50:05 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
References: <CAHBDyN6PN-vp9wXo6fF8G4VfODXjkfbWBaJN8EPopeWfOg9PmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN6PN-vp9wXo6fF8G4VfODXjkfbWBaJN8EPopeWfOg9PmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour@tools.ietf.org, Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:50:18 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08 PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Single Marking (SM) Mode of Operation Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 31-Dec-2011 IETF LC End Date: 13-Jan-2012 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This documents is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Question: Given that the document defines a complex set of behaviors, which are mandatory for compliant systems, it seems that this ought to be Experimental rather than Informational. It describes something that could, in theory, later become standards track. Major issues: Section 2 on Assumed Core Network Behavior for SM, in the third bullet, states that the PCN-domain satisfies the conditions specified in RFC 5696. Unfortunately, look at RFC 5696 I can not tell what conditions these are. Is this supposed to be a reference to RFC 5559 instead? No matter which document it is referencing, please be more specific about which section / conditions are meant. It would have been helpful if the early part of the document indicated that the edge node information about how to determine ingress-egress-aggregates was described in section 5. In conjunction with that, section 5.1.2, third paragraph, seems to describe an option which does not seem to quite work. After describing how to use tunneling, and how to work with signaling, the text refers to inferring the ingress-egress-aggregate from the routing information. In the presence of multiple equal-cost domain exits (which does occur in reality), the routing table is not sufficient information to make this determination. Unless I am very confused (which does happen) this seems to be a serious hole in the specification. Minor issues: Section 3.3.1 states that the "block" decision occurs when the CLE (excess over total) rate exceeds the configured limit. However, section 3.3.2 states that the decision node must take further stapes if the excess rate is non-zero in further reports. Is this inconsistency deliberate? If so, please explain. If not, please fix. (If it is important to drive the excess rate to 0, then why is action only initiated when the ratio is above a configured value, rather than any non-zero value? I can conceive of various reasons. But none are stated.) Nits/editorial comments:
- [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviou… Joel M. Halpern
- [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2011… Mary Barnes
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Michael Menth
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Michael Menth
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… David Harrington
- [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviou… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-beha… Tom Taylor
- [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rf… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcor… Adam Roach
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcor… Alexey Melnikov