Re: [Gen-art] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-12

[Matt Mathis <[e-mail]>]

You are correct, the section is a bit stale.  And although the authors of
6789 would like to claim the topic is closed, newer documents
(e.g. draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07.txt,) have found it necessary to hedge
on this very issue for pragmatic reasons.  (Note the overlapping authors
between -abstract-mech-, 6789 and -accecn-).

The core advice in section 4.6 still stands:
>
> "This document does not take a strong position on this issue.    However,
> a ConEx encoding will need to explicitly specify whether it assumes units
> of bytes or packets consistently for both congestion indications and ConEx
> markings.  (see network layer requirement E in Section 3.3)."


Some of the surrounding editorializing reflects not completely resolved
tension between the authors on this point.  I for one would prefer to
remove the presumption that 6789 and 7141 are the final answer, and make
this draft purely bytes/packets agnostic.  I partially ceded the point on
the grounds that the impracticality 6789 would doom it over the long haul,
as we have already seen in -accecn-.

It would be bad form for this document to explicitly conflict with 6789,
but I for one would object to it unequivocally endorsing 6789, and although
leaving it waffle, isn't pretty, it does accurately reflect the views of
the authors.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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-conex-abstract-mech-12
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 5-Aug-2014
> IETF LC End Date: 8-Aug-2014
> IESG Telechat date: Not on an upcoming telechat agenda
>
> Summary: Ready for publication as Informational
>
> This document handles a complex description problem in a very accessible
> way.
> Thank you for the effort that has gone into creating it.
>
> One minor point to double-check:
>
> This document goes out of its way to push decisions about measuring in
> packets,
> bytes, or other units to the concrete  encoding proposals. RFC6789 was
> explicit
> about conex exposing a metric of congestion-volume measured in bytes.
>
> RFC6789 was published a couple of years ago - has that part of it become
> stale?
> If so, it would be good for this document to explicitly call that out.
>
> If not, (most of section 4.6 goes back to -04 which predates RFC6789),
> does this document need to retain the this flexibility in its description?
>
>