Re: [manet] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

[resend with full distro]

Hi Ronald,

see in line below.

On 7/15/2021 12:54 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't wrote:

> Hi Authors, MANET WG participants,
>
> Please find below my long overdue comments on
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, one of three documents
> related to credit-based flow control that have been in WGLC for a long
> time. (With chair wig off).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ronald
>
> --
>
> Major Issues
>
> ============
>
> None
>
> Minor Issues
>
> ============
>
> Section 1, Introduction, contains the somewhat puzzling sentence
> "Specifically it enables traffic sent by a router to use traffic flow
> classification information provided by the modem to identify which
> traffic flows." It seems to me that it is the router, as opposed to
> the traffic, that uses the classification information to identify
> flows. The traffic cannot identify itself. Suggest to rephrase and
> clarify.
>
how about:

Specifically it enables a router to use traffic flow classification
information provided by the modem to identify traffic flows.


> It is unclear to me what is meant by "The list of flows contained in
> the Data Item can be used per sender or shared across multiple
> senders." in section 2, Traffic Classification.
>
I think this sentence can be dropped.


> Do Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items within a given Traffic
> Classification Data Item (as specified in section 2.1) all need to be
> of the same type (i.e., all DiffServ or all PCP) or is "mix and match"
> allowed? If the former, I would suggest stating this explicitly.
>
This is based on the extension.  I'll add a sentence on this:

Note that when extensions supporting multiple sub Data Items are
negotiated, these types MAY be combined in a single Data Item.

> Nits
>
> ====
>
> Throughout the document: Replace "sub data item" and "Sub Data Item"
> by "Sub-Data Item", thus following the precedent set by RFC8651. (I
> would personally have preferred "Data Sub-item" or even "Data Item
> Sub-item").
>
>   <
>
sure

> Abstract
>
> "It's use will be mandated  ..." => "Its use will be mandated  ..."
>
ack

> Section 1
>
> 1st para: "Credit windows may be shared or dedicated on a per flow
> basis." Credit windows appear out of the blue here, possibly due to a
> copy-paste error. Suggest deletion of this sentence.
>
yes!!!!

> 1st para: "The Data Item is structured to allow for reuse of the
> defined traffic classification information ..." => "The Data Item is
> structured to allow for use of the defined traffic classification
> information ..." (no other specific use has been mentioned yet)
>
agreed

> 1st para: "... with applications such as credit window control, such
> as found in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]" => "... with
> applications such as credit window control as specified in
> [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]" (just a style suggestion)
>
sure

> 2nd para:
>
> "... and when combined with applications such as credit window
> control, allows credit windows to be shared across traffic sent to
> multiple DLEP destinations and flows, or used exclusively for traffic
> sent to a particular destination and/or flow." =>
>
> "... and when combined with applications such as credit window
> control, allows credit windows to be shared across traffic sent to
> multiple DLEP destinations and as part of multiple flows, or used
> exclusively for traffic sent to a particular destination and/or
> belonging to a particular flow." (Traffic is not sent TO flows)
>
good change, but you're killing me with visual diff here!

> 2nd para: Replace [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension] by [RFC8651]
>
thanks

> Section 2
>
> last sentence: "The scope of TID and FID values is a modem." => "TID
> and FID values have modem-local scope."
>
sure

> Section 2.3
>
> Definition of Length field:
>
> "... it is equal to four (4) plus the number of octets needed to carry
> the carried Priority fields is indicated by the NumPCPs field." =>
>
> "... it is equal to four (4) plus the number of octets needed to
> accommodate the number of Priority fields indicated by the NumPCPs field."
>
sure

> Definition of Pad field: "... and MIST be ignored on receipt." => "...
> and MUST be ignored on receipt."
>
thanks

> Section 6.2
>
> Replace informative reference I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension by
> RFC8651
>
Thank you for another great review.  Upload will be done shortly.

Lou


PS sorry for missing you on the Acks in the previous review -- I'll
correct that in the next rev!


> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If
> you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by
> mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the
> message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for
> the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting
> from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>