Re: [PANRG] I-D Action: draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07.txt

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 16 January 2020 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 B96C5120911 for <panrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:59:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 gS9az4W3cs-6 for <panrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:59:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DC0A1208B4 for <panrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id w1so21256104ljh.5 for <panrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:59:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MScb3QsDK8XcO+75pt4OXLCLz6xiD+Mz1GRrve9BHmg=; b=o3aJbzHfsJQnLHDkmM0rH5iipOPkBxGf3WWWjZ97mzMFWvsMn9Tx2hkAH5+Jlvy6Fe ld0cL3j5ULfv739lAuE8mYuxARtDMtSvCHdGlaILFE30AIrRKJZ6B9t0aUqKtOK02zn1 EXFfeiddOqZU7r2c93pbaO8huZy6b9aDiNXUoAOVsWNTejkimr9YPWRobHr3OZm9736O S4ZUnxpZ9LqwsuSjd7BZkP0CMDyAGRv7ZfOBiJKQ/im8MNKLIEOAWa1/4Y5P3oOT3Yfr tijZHQG/aZBHlSmmqcCVesiq3zNT9CaNZzGe4HAF5iqUmIx7x12nga+KczYv1Prg1tQh 63DA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MScb3QsDK8XcO+75pt4OXLCLz6xiD+Mz1GRrve9BHmg=; b=OgcCILCCIslB7H4mqO6K5iicaDCfrd4oADh49rmdYhpCwOHTFVZ7tFAqF4v/Gnyd+E 1lo1ky0U4bC3r4Cl9rq+BpXdhNPr7pU2eKjlOrhhjX6hLQJ7qwEYCApSed589OWotZQK XyJRoidEvtfPTsez0soSQIsUWL2ISNEG5Uu5x8Tq5G/atA7kcFaIRn6TnPgy+DBt+9iv 7v8fwzQL0wPIpqRP3QvMdyrUF2zwLJvklEHBBaLFvtcWhhy+2XLULNYmuGpZTPImLjQp 5OZcwWrDFzejhoBFPeK0DvImOeqdDsRjdFR+O0jnbiTwiZv8tvwX+nbMmWL1JosaaArx LhiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXa5YXm3xGGKfUlzr37gjhfRjYPoDajubjNo2YdY7ZQr/LHVKwL /+zmlADlDy0vt+DEWkyn+NCTZRoFZp4/W58yqGGPHV5Hqpw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyOIUK7TbcsEsjClLuT5Wg+n4s6+mj26TjBDTLE0jRI6G32VHCTuyCMn50LXMWUaSDdausrm6wx8JN2IBCs3ds=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9708:: with SMTP id r8mr1209914lji.92.1579154351208; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:59:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157915359377.21812.18011231046083451973@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <157915359377.21812.18011231046083451973@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:58:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-ev=Yr9_qruoA7DXdKWiwfhcf=SS_G8RMYe5fGY9S_zAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: panrg@irtf.org
Cc: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000264040059c3b8603"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/panrg/yTuqHMBCVtrJSKIDfYNE4nJyAUI>
Subject: Re: [PANRG] I-D Action: draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07.txt
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:59:16 -0000

Dear PANRGers,

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:46 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Path Aware Networking RG RG of the IRTF.
>
>         Title           : Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to Deployment
> (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken)
>         Author          : Spencer Dawkins
>         Filename        : draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07.txt
>         Pages           : 35
>         Date            : 2020-01-15
>
> Abstract:
>    At the first meeting of the Path Aware Networking Research Group, the
>    research group agreed to catalog and analyze past efforts to develop
>    and deploy Path Aware techniques, most of which were unsuccessful or
>    at most partially successful, in order to extract insights and
>    lessons for path-aware networking researchers.
>
>    This document contains that catalog and analysis.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07


I actually did have some time this week to go through Med's comments.
Here's what you should see in the diff.

(Note that I had missed Med's comments on -05, so you might also look at
the -05/-07 diffs)

Med  provided his comments in MS Word and PDF, in these locations:

* pdf :
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05-rev%20Med.pdf

* doc:
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05-rev%20Med.doc

My responses, the vast majority being "oh, yeah", follow.

   1. Med suggested "Path Aware Techniques" instead of "Path Aware
   Technologies". I made that change - I think I suggested the original term,
   anyway.
   2. Med also pointed out (correctly) that I was being excessively cute
   about capitalizing Path Aware in most/all cases, whether it was part of a
   proper noun or not. I agree.
   3. I clarified in the Introduction that we were talking about both
   non-adoption and adoption that was constrained by the issues that we are
   talking about in this document.
   4. Med asked for a short definition of "path aware networking". I had
   added a section about this in -06 at Theresa's request, but it was
   definitely needed.
   5. Med asked about adding a new Lesson to section 2, as "Some of the
   failed proposals require that the full path should be capable to support a
   new feature (e.g., resource reservation). An alternate approach to focus
   only on the segment where this is useful would suffice: for example, if
   signaling is done only with the access point better experience would be
   observed immediately without requiring in the full path compliance". I
   THOUGHT providing benefits during incremental deployment was captured in
   the existing lessons, but it's certainly not plainly stated. I paraphrased
   this suggestion in, in a new  Section 2.3 and updated Section 3 to include
   it as an Invariant.
   6. Med pointed out that what is now Section 2.2 and 2.5 are related, and
   (IMO) that includes what is now Section 2.3. What I was trying to get at,
   is that benefits for end users and operators aren't the same thing. Do
   these three subsections need refactoring?
   7. Med pointed out that routers aren't the only platforms with fast
   paths (and slow paths). I reflected this comment in the document.
   8. Med also provided editorial corrections.

Because 2.3 is completely new text, I'd like to call the working group's
attention to this subsection, and the characterization of this lesson in
Section 3. .

Please let me know what you think.

Best,

Spencer