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

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
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 CF9DB1B2B3A; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 6XJI1ws4dHXk; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 852031B2B2C; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1340; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1442407780; x=1443617380; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LQR5lTcTEx0B+UfC0D1EoOPC26wnG5e2+m8uInsgAiA=; b=GC/3fmHDK3HVAOIvaOHcG4aQewAcFbiaR1tCGgxjhCwgMEdNwZ9T3dXV JTTp+pcU5dv0KD/g1FUzR28r4HUxjpBSMc48J8ZjfmP0WYdjOfFW0JlXE UlNJuVaSXPpQ+Gm8zkrPM7fJD1XBeQDOrdSzl3nkGgsTHoKEoPldh7G6Q 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,539,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="607039545"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2015 12:49:37 +0000
Received: from [64.103.106.124] (dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan300-64-103-106-124.cisco.com [64.103.106.124]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8GCnbnC028254; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:49:37 GMT
References: <20150915214123.27618.16054.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <55F9658C.6020504@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:50:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150915214123.27618.16054.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/t_seU1jWmXVWpaYJBpMRrjy3ifw>
Cc: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal.shepherd@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:49:42 -0000

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