IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 04 June 2015 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986B51A0067; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Msy-mKzZrCUb; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731191A0066; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.35]) by mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t54Gw8r4014499 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:58:10 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com t54Gw8r4014499
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1433437090; bh=zaS2S1zPSh04NflQI7HM4+u95hE=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=LYgBclOWuGNmCbNBeFY+DhoHZCSd548zeDSXM+IacP2dT5o7e3vahIBADqLNAwRDw tp4lh8gvtcOVLVzdiZDrS6mZyf6iRsLjpwdPRtVeYtUEvHAHNAiMnW3ce04i4Kmk7x 4Ok8KRXKydIn/uE6WyQCDBvkGQlOHB9NoZTwjNvo=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd04.lss.emc.com t54Gw8r4014499
Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:57:50 -0400
Received: from mxhub28.corp.emc.com (mxhub28.corp.emc.com [10.254.110.184]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t54GvqZb003396 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:57:52 -0400
Received: from MXHUB107.corp.emc.com (10.253.50.23) by mxhub28.corp.emc.com (10.254.110.184) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:57:51 -0400
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.90]) by MXHUB107.corp.emc.com ([10.253.50.23]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:57:51 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "<lionel.morand@orange.com>" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01
Thread-Index: AQHQlp9Ck6NaZFCdJ0O3D7vO8yUTlZ2cz5eA///Q4JA=
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:57:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949360B3455C0@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <55629E31.2060900@gmail.com> <CAHbuEH645D=-RPpJaf9TL08xUZTG3rmqa-g3KC0HoLKjZnw79Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH645D=-RPpJaf9TL08xUZTG3rmqa-g3KC0HoLKjZnw79Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.160.96.76]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949360B3455C0MX104CL02corpem_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/RSJAk-41PAIfZb2PI-44Y4DJLMA>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:58:21 -0000

> 1) I suggest that somebody with ECN smarts should glance at it (e.g. David Black).

Last Call on this draft happened while I was on vacation; I’ll try to take a look early next week before the telechat.

Thanks,
--David

From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:41 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter; <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes.all@ietf.org; General Area Review Team; Black, David
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01

Brian,

Thank you for your review.  I agree, the shepherd report should be amended to remove the 'updates' language since the extensions are optional.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> 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-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2015-05-25
IETF LC End Date: 2015-06-01
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:  Ready
--------

Comment:
--------

This is a clear and well-written document. I do have two comments, however:
1) I suggest that somebody with ECN smarts should glance at it (e.g. David Black).
2) The shepherd suggests in the writeup that it should formally update RFC 5777.
But since it describes optional extensions to RFC 5777 that are strictly compatible,
I don't think that's right.



--

Best regards,
Kathleen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email