Re: [manet] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02

["Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <[e-mail]>]

David,

(Please see below).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Black via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: dinsdag 19 december 2023 23:14
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Tsvart early review of
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-
> 02
>
> Reviewer: David Black
> Review result: On the Right Track
>
> This review is effectively an extension of aprior TSVART review of earlier
> versions of three related DLRP drafts to include a fourth DLEP draft.
>
> That prior TSVART review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-
> art/JOflH810WxMl8U5tXnVVTOCwgLE/)
> covered:
>
>         DLEP Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items
>                 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-09
>         DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension
>                 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-12
>         DLEP Traffic Classification Data Item
>                 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-06
>
> The additional fourth draft that is the subject of this review is:
>
>         DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension
>                 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02
>
> This ether-credit-extension draft has strong similarities to the da-credit-
> extension draft, so the prior review comments applicable to the da-credit-
> extension draft should also be applied to this ether-credit-extension draft.
> Most of the prior review comments were on the credit-flow-control and
> traffic-classification drafts, although there are a few that apply to the
> credit-
> extension drafts, e.g., the security concern for which a resolution was
> discussed on the mailing list.
>
> The review request specifically mentioned the number of documents concern
> raised by the prior review.  It is clear from the shepherd writeups for the
> previously reviewed drafts that the WG has discussed whether to merge
> drafts and has decided not to merge any of them, beyond which the addition
> of this fourth draft weakens the rationale for merging.  That seems
> reasonable - this reviewer will nowdefer to the judgement of the WG and the
> responsible ADs on the number of drafts that are appropriate.
>

Thank you very much for your prompt response to the review request for this
draft, which as you note is part of cluster of four I-Ds related to
credit-based flow control DLEP extensions, but has been limping behind the
other three through the WG process (for no good reason).

@Lou Berger (as representative of the authors of all four drafts): Can we work
together to resolve the remaining issues from the earlier review as mentioned
above by David? I believe
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/opT3E5mWD9FJHT-bTA-EH78QMzc/ is
the last message in the mail exchange between David and yourself. I will have
a stab at addressing some of those issues. (Please let me know if I missed
more recent conversation about this).

Thanks,
Ronald (as document shepherd)