Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20
Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 30 November 2023 12:18 UTC
Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514B3C1516E9; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 04:18:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CGzBV-NZcOKY; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 04:18:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BBB0C151701; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 04:18:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id D672C80496; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:17:59 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1701346681; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=cnygqg7lW3SHmVv2ORGwYAaxfH4mvnNiE9+NXGCWBdw=; b=ZrovsnR4VPFviR3GW4uCJcnq9VR0MsJLQxFGezvWf+aRRqhGtHk5ZTxKLUoec6DJ0fcx5f 7+MVVoDPOfB0Z6963DZYafBZ/hSyCyQe5JZ9ZHUCSgXveP5myzGmCz4kHl1HQNw50ypKuU mxVLMjRlduYEWBZKELe6f9YUFCRmvRMLJGhSX5bPyqvxPMsXkWIr7FHcfLqfckWWIQN0D5 ORCE2g1hc174RrFNvlUEAKay776sIBe+NpnlKWxzX5PflFwavXlwHrHdHff7kLiWjxqjss XE0iLOTn/cuwM1Zk/UKlXFZRbbFFtWcAAoUKkOg3+4MYz6hwOOf2y9gVFyzZAQ==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.200.91.1.1\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <169853147405.56049.1540851343012580745@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:17:59 +0200
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4CF7F035-1D7B-42A3-9723-1B0D4FF1CC37@eggert.org>
References: <169853147405.56049.1540851343012580745@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/cR1KaMN88C7udCkCcuCdfraw9yk>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:18:08 -0000
Susan, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On Oct 29, 2023, at 01:17, Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Susan Hares > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last-call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-?? > Reviewer: Susan Hares > Review Date: 2023-10-28 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-11-02 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The document summarizes decades of work on congestion work in IEEE > 802.1 and IETF. It provides a set of good guidelines/recommendations for > designers of Layer-2 (L2) or L2/L3 shim layer. > > The authors (John Kaippallimalil and Bob Briscoe) and the original author/ > now-contributor (Pat Thaler) should be commended for their work. > > The text is generally readable with relatively few English and editorial > issues. However, the authors would be wise to fix the editorial issues prior > to sending it to the RFC editor since phrasing needs to be precise. > > Major issues: none. > > Minor issues: > > 1. Have the authors considered the SR-routing pathways with tunnels in this > draft? > If so, the authors might add a side note in the document. > 2. Has this document been circulated by the IETF liaisons to IEEE 802.1, MEF, > and 3GPP? 3. Are you really sure your security and manageability sections are > complete? > RFC7713 predates large deployment of SR routing. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Formatting in the pdf seems to be problematic. I am not commenting on this > point since html form does not have hte same problem. > > Nits in Editing: > Section 2 > Old/Not-ECN-PDU: > A PDU at the IP layer or below that is part of a congestion control > feedback-loop within which at least one node necessary to propagate any > explicit congestion notification signals back to the Load Regulator is not > capable of doing that propagation./ New:/Not-ECN-PDU: A PDU at the IP layer or > below that is part of a congestion control feedback-loop within which at least > one node necessary to propagate any explicit congestion notification signals > back to the Load Regulator this PDU is not capable of doing that propagation./ > > Section 3 > Text:/ > The router forwards the marked L3 header into subnet 2, and when it adds a new > L2 header it copies the L3 marking into the L2 header as well, as shown by the > 'C's in both layers (assuming the technology of subnet 2 also supports explicit > congestion marking)./ > > Question - did you mean subnet b instead of subnet 2 (per figure 1) > > Section 4.3 > Text:/ > This ensures that bulk congestion monitoring of outer headers (e.g. by a > network management node monitoring ECN in passing frames) will measure > congestion accumulated along the whole upstream path — since the Load Regulator > not just since the ingress of the subnet. / > > The portion of this sentence that has me confused is "since the Load Regulator > not just since the ingress of the subnet.". I'm not really sure what you are > trying to say - so I have no suggested new text. > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
- [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Susan Hares via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] [tsvwg] Genart last call review o… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [Last-Call] [tsvwg] Genart last call review o… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Lars Eggert