Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05
Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net> Mon, 06 January 2020 12:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@tenghardt.net>
X-Original-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D44120801 for <panrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 04:22:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_B=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tenghardt.net
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 Wj9BzDchPTDT for <panrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 04:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hemio.de (mail.hemio.de [136.243.12.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985801207FC for <panrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 04:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from user.client.invalid (localhost [136.243.12.180]) by mail.hemio.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 539AABB; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:22:13 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tenghardt.net; s=20170414; t=1578313334; bh=cLAOqtUaGLjBF105WFxsXcYd7aBen7p/m+eSfc3Eo4M=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=i2q2CbW26PMUo+XldnkBW2EUMJBIE9l5bGnXbU03r6lXE2Emntq7qf2Muj6+yIAuy 8RhH+YpkCXL6S91lAWhYmD5J2yIVQG3Q2md6pkOL5AnBaKdLUYQynv+LMUf7Tu/N41 FSg6/QZIgm/uLgHKA/5kDhYep+GjoS7KUVolc2hpB7Hntlt/2QFbVAQROsqGhDjoFH z2qttox2MuR4CT/xMuoD4R1bcSZXEoS2t3ZRCdmC1lBXLYfBQkgD1+Coi+d15BIYaz 65Yicf/uCaQrzuUEKTcKdofbrH4LBSiz2R2gQhhT/Z2K7BbeAtxqJ32VignpDNRt06 BRY+NjaYseeWA==
To: panrg@irtf.org
Cc: panrg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do@ietf.org
References: <157656406442.24542.13576913839966234470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BAT+rhhOxf__HPTA6T83sOuwRophF1NJ7O_TemsP+dUEkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>
Message-ID: <069b0eb4-7ff1-f259-c36f-f432e72438d5@tenghardt.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 13:22:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAT+rhhOxf__HPTA6T83sOuwRophF1NJ7O_TemsP+dUEkw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/panrg/2LiZOpaTr9WADIe4nRaIG_An964>
Subject: Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05
X-BeenThere: panrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Path Aware Networking \(Proposed\) Research Group discussion list" <panrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/panrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:panrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:22:18 -0000
Dear PANRG, I recently gave this document a thorough read from my perspective as a researcher of Path Aware technologies. As I have not been around yet for the development of most of the technologies listed in this document, I find its "lessons learned" to be quite a valuable resource. So, again, thank you for writing it! To make this document even more accessible to researchers wanting to learn from it, I have a few comments, see below. Once these are addressed, I think this document is ready for publication. Section 1: Maybe it's worth adding one paragraph with a short definition or description of what we mean by Path Aware technologies here, e.g., at the very beginning? Section 2.1: What exactly does "Overcoming Entropy" mean? To me, entropy sounds like this is about the ecosystem of deployed hardware/software being too diverse or chaotic, so the benefits of the proposed Path Aware solution do not outweigh the costs. But the rest of the paragraph also sounds like this is about trying to solve a non-problem, or a problem with insufficient motivation to solve it? Or is this both? Maybe I just fail to capture all the nuances of the colloquial American English expression as a non-native English speaker. ;) I think adding a clarifying sentence to make the lesson more explicit would help here. Section 2.3: This is about multiple possible solutions to the same problem, right, one being end-to-end and another being Path Aware? So is Path Aware necessarily not end-to-end? This goes back to comment on considering to add a definition of Path Aware technologies to Section 1. Section 2.7: What is the relationship between "Keeping Traffic on Router Fast-paths" and "Router Alert Options (RAO)"? Does RAO mean that the traffic cannot be fast-path anymore? This seems to be implicitly said here, but I think adding a sentence to make this explicit would help. Section 2.9: The section heading says "Intermediate Devices Trusting Endpoints", but the text is about endpoints not relying on signals from intermediate devices. This seems odd to me. Maybe the headings of 2.8 and 2.9 should be swapped, because 2.8 appears to be about operators of intermediate devices not using signals from endpoints and 2.9 seems to be about endpoints not using signals from intermediate devices? Nit: "long term, term trust relatioship" -> duplicate "term" Section 2.11: Does "Providing a new feature/signal [does not mean that that the feature/signal will be used]" refer to the problem that a stack implements the possibility to set, e.g., an additional variable, but then an application using the stack fails to set this variable? Or is this about the stack setting the variable, and then an application would have to interpret this variable, but fails to do so? Or both? I guess here, in the first sentence, I am confused about what exactly is meant by "provide", "use", or "utilize" a signal - implementing support for setting a variable, actually setting the variable, or interpreting the variable which has been previously set by someone else? I think another example of this problem is Section 5.8. Section 3: When categorizing the lessons as "invariant", "variable", or "dragons", I guess "dragons" is kept vague on purpose. Still, I'm wondering if we could make this a bit more clear - Does "dragons" mean that we don't know if the lesson is invariant or variable, or that we don't want to comment on it, or that the problem is open-ended? Maybe adding one more sentence here makes sense, especially for non-native English speakers who might not be familiar with the phrase "here be dragons". In the last paragraph, I fail to parse the following sentence: "[TAPS] will justify consideration of the current state of play for Path Aware Networking proposals for some time to come" - Does that mean that we think TAPS might change this lesson, thus, the lesson should be re-evaluated after some time? Section 5.3: "[…] In these cases, a sender cannot easily determine an appropriate initial sending rate, given the lack of information about the path" What does "these" refer to here? Isn't this a general problem? "One challenge is synchronization of information between different packets […]" What does synchronization mean here? That a router signals for two flows that there's capacity? Section 5.5: "[…] somehow TCP could be signaled when that link returned to service" Should this be "somehow TCP could signal when the link returned to service"? Section 5.6: "work began on a protocol that would provide the same benefits for multihomed IPv6 sites […]" Same benefits as IPv4 multihomed sites? The previous sentence talks about problems, not benefits. Is the sentence starting with "In addition, the usual concerns about firewalls […]" missing a verb? Section 5.7.1: "One reason for the non-deployment of NSIS is the usage of the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option (RAO) to allow for an efficient interception of those path-coupled signaling messages" As someone not familiar with RAO, this sentence reads a bit confusing to me - it was not deployed because it is efficient? "End-to-end signaling approaches were considered problematic […]" So is NSIS an end-to-end signaling approach? I thought Path Aware technologies were not end-to-end (Section 2.3)? To me, end-to-end by default means "end host to end host", without considering any intermediate device, but I think this paragraph means something else by it. I think adding a sentence explaining who the "end to end" is here would help. Best, Theresa
- [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-what-no… Jen Linkova
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-wha… Theresa Enghardt
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-wha… Scharf, Michael
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-wha… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-wha… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-wha… Theresa Enghardt
- Re: [PANRG] RG Last Call for draft-irtf-panrg-wha… Spencer Dawkins at IETF