Re: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-pals-congcons-01: (with COMMENT)

Bob Briscoe <research@bobbriscoe.net> Thu, 07 January 2016 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <research@bobbriscoe.net>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45471ABB1A; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:56:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 iAPnZM5bpfrD; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (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 44DB81ABB19; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 96.21.198.146.dyn.plus.net ([146.198.21.96]:36001 helo=[192.168.0.6]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from <research@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1aHFjM-0008W3-E5; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 18:56:17 +0000
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160106225907.26779.28827.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <research@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <568EB4CF.9050606@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 18:56:15 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160106225907.26779.28827.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
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: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/OQthJD_LKp8thX0g_veviaUux8o>
Cc: pals-chairs@ietf.org, agmalis@gmail.com, pals@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-congcons@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-pals-congcons-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 18:56:21 -0000

Spencer,

Sounds a reasonable request.

With the one proviso that we should use the term "mechanism to protect 
other traffic, e.g. circuit breaker in the last resort".

...given I have been arguing that there will nearly always be better 
mechanisms (and no less complex) that a CB, which destroys and f***'s-up 
as much as it protects.


Bob

On 06/01/16 22:59, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pals-congcons-01: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-congcons/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, very nice. I have one request for you to consider.
>
> In this text:
>
>     The figures presented above demonstrate that TDM service quality
>     degradation generally occurs before the TDM PW would consume more
>     bandwidth that a comparable TCP flow.  Thus while TDM PWs are unable
>     to respond to congestion in a TCP-like manner, TDM PWs that are able
>     to deliver acceptable TDM service do not contribute to congestion
>     significantly more than a TCP flow.  Combined with our earlier
>     conclusion that Ethernet PWs respond in TCP-like fashion, leads to
>     our final conclusion that no PW-specific congestion-avoidance
>     mechanisms are required.
>
> I can't tell whether or not you're saying that a TPM PW only needs a
> circuit breaker as an absolute last resort, or it doesn't need a circuit
> breaker, or something else. If you could finish the last sentence with a
> word about that, I think it would be helpful.
>
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/