Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24
Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Wed, 24 August 2022 16:56 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
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 047A4C14F72D; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=bobbriscoe.net
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 wf--HkOqrAS2; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ssdrsserver2.hostinginterface.eu (mail-ssdrsserver2.hostinginterface.eu [185.185.85.90]) (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 4782DC14F692; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=c6lZoznbNmU2v41EMmp+xZ+myHBssoKds1+VY60zUJQ=; b=zOxBfBdwCN0ZGkrJSHLOBIFehg C6+E0PAAwZAlJQjOwqLJ3tmDINq+xX1U/2KqonzRcpWxzY3ooWbB+wT2OYqHERFa1LBo5yi4AZWz7 OFaMGrlFxO0rZUs4XS3kVBUJazxiX7eabFWuo6K9rO1WQyLiXakktjBV91kQiuQjdcZHlWaTsTlye lTAfMOmYLT7JEoZX4yv1uge5wZUvLQh0Yn7DoZsLXScIjcdpgsUXXD7bDMUJv5/53YXr4yfbLkVBV nPFql1bizcymNbiB84fNTwkowYo6HpbGi1LG8RHxtfN13luYhRaXPB9MCdonAGEy4K+CliKLpr8Rk cPKs1gKQ==;
Received: from 67.153.238.178.in-addr.arpa ([178.238.153.67]:40020 helo=[192.168.1.4]) by ssdrsserver2.hostinginterface.eu with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1oQtgS-0007am-GH; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:56:50 +0100
Message-ID: <c80736ff-1667-9513-1096-43b182b91f2f@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:56:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-GB
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <166124349208.15316.7679975672698377129@ietfa.amsl.com> <7b064d3b-eb6d-331c-b6fc-51e85d649346@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <7b064d3b-eb6d-331c-b6fc-51e85d649346@bobbriscoe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ssdrsserver2.hostinginterface.eu
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ssdrsserver2.hostinginterface.eu: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: ssdrsserver2.hostinginterface.eu: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/oqWYs0JkO0Xua6dubEH-R58hw08>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24
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: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:56:59 -0000
Christer, Yesterday (see [BB] still below) I outlined how I was going to address each of your points and promised specific text today. I've done this via a diff uploaded temporarily to my own website here: https://bobbriscoe.net/tmp/draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-25d-DIFF-24.html Please let me know if I've correctly understood and dealt with all your concerns. Cheers Bob On 24/08/2022 00:02, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Christer, > > Somehow I didn't receive your email at all, so I've had to reconstruct > it from the web mail archive - I hope my reply preserves the > Message-ID and all the distro emails correctly. > Pls see [BB] inline. > > On 23/08/2022 09:31, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker wrote: >> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg >> Review result: Almost Ready >> >> 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24 >> >> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg >> Review Date: 2022-08-23 >> IETF LC End Date: 2022-07-21 >> IESG Telechat date: 2022-08-25 >> >> Summary: >> >> The content and technology of the document is outside the area of >> expertise, so >> my comments are mainly related to the readability of the document. I >> list >> everything as Nits/editorial issues, eventhough some could also be >> considered >> Minor issues. > > [BB] Thank you for your comments. They are all useful, finding things > we should have found. > >> >> Major issues: >> >> N/A >> >> Minor issues: >> >> N/A >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> ABSTRACT: >> >> I think the Abstract is too long. Also, it starts with the "This >> specification >> defines..." sentence. I think it should start with a few sentences on >> what the >> problem is, and then indicate what the document defines in order to >> solve that >> problem. > > [BB] OK, we (the co-authors) have discussed ways to make it shorter. > I'll suggest specific text in a further email, hopefully tomorrow, But > first I wanted to see if you reacted to anything we're proposing in > general terms. > I expect we'll move everything after "The coupling acts like..." to > the intro, but we have to read the result back carefully because, at > this late stage, major changes like this can break things. > > Having cut down the abstract, we'll probably add a sentence sthg like > "The framework is not specific about which AQMs to use, but it gives > normative requirements for specific implementations, as well as > pseudocode example implementations in appendices." > > > I agree that it's good to start from the problem. and the document > itself does just that after the 1-para intro. But, in the case of this > abstract, the sequence of logic from the original three problems (low > delay, low loss, scalable throughput) to this DualQ part of the > solution, goes through convoluted intermediate stages each raising a > new problem, and eventually ends up with the specific problem that the > DualQ solves (which is why the problem section is quite long). > > Rather than try to cram all that into the abstract, we decided to > start from the last step (the DualQ - that solved the chain of > problems), then describe the last problem in the sequence (that it > solved), and what the result was (low latency etc.), without trying to > explain all the other problems in the sequence. I think the first part > of the abstract does quite a good job of summarizing all that, so I > wouldn't want to disturb it at this late stage (also bearing in mind > that there have been many eyes on this already). > >> >> INTRODUCTION (Section 1): >> >> In the beginning of the Section there is a "This document specifies a >> framework..." statement. Then, there is a similar statement at the >> end of >> Section 1.1., which is only supposed to describe the problem >> statement - not >> the solution. There is also a Scope section (1.2) and a Features >> section (1.4), >> but it is quite difficult to separate between Scope and Features. > > [BB] > 1) You're right that the last para of the problem statement strays > into solution mode. > We'll cut duplication and move any non-dup text elsewhere. I'll give > specifics in a further email tomorrow. > > 2) AFAICT, "§1.4 Features" solely contains material about what the > design achieves (hence the section title), > whereas "§1.2 Scope" doesn't describe any specific features. It does > talk about "benefits", but only in general, where it talks about > deployment applicability and so forth. > > Can you point to any specific example that triggered your concern > about Scope and Features being indistinguishable? > > 3) I think Scope would be better titled as 'Context, Scope and > Applicability.' > Agree? > > > >> >> SECTION 2: >> >> It seems like the actual requirements for the framework are not >> presented until >> Section 2.5. I think the requirements should come earlier, before the >> solution. > > [BB] The document describes a general framework for Coupled Dual-Queue > AQMs, then the Requirements are the normative statements of what > specific implementations of that general framework MUST or SHOULD > comply with. > > I can see that this ought to be explained and hasn't been. Probably in > the abstract, and intro, as well as at the head of the section itself. > I'll suggest specific text in a further email tomorrow. > > >> >> SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS (Section 4): >> >> There is quite a bit of text in the Security Considerations. In >> general that is >> not a bad thing :) >> >> My question is whether the content is actually about security? Much >> seem to be >> more "operational" issues. > > [BB] Most of the points are about traffic security (overload, > flooding, unresponsiveness, starvation). This is a branch of security. > I suspect you're expecting information security, but that's not the > only branch of security. > > If there's anything in there that you still think is unrelated to > security, pls point to it. But I'm pretty sure there isn't. > > Regards > > > Bob > >> >> >> >> > -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Christer Holmberg via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review… Bob Briscoe