Re: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Stewart and Andy,

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 15/09/2015 22:41, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> A minor question ... I was somewhat surprised to see this statement.
>>
>> 1.  Introduction
>>
>>     o  Some operators are concerned that the inclusion of the PW CW will
>>        increase the PW packet size.
>>        It seems like the working group would know whether that's true (so,
>> something like "The increase in PW packet size due to the inclusion of
>> the PW CW will cause problems X, Y, and Z"), or it's not.
>>
>> Is it true? If so, the issue isn't that operators believe there's a
>> problem, but that there's really a problem.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>> The origin of this size issue is very small packets (for example ATM
> cells)
> over very slow bandwidth links (for example low bandwidth satellites).
>
> Remember that the PWE3 OAM has to work for all PW types over all
> link types, including the edge links.
>
> The statement is precisely correct, and whilst we could add some text
> I am not sure whether it would add value or whether the amount of
> text needed would unnecessarily enlarge the introduction, particularly
> since that would then lead to an need to expand the earlier more important
> reasons.
>
> - Stewart
>

Thanks for the speedy responses.

I'll plead guilty to seeing way too much news reporting that starts out
"some people believe ..." in recent months, followed by absolute fantasy
(and don't get me started by asking for examples!).

If the problem really is that some operators have this concern, whether
it's justified or not, then you're doing the right thing by saying so.

Spencer