Re: [PWE3] WG Last call for draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02? (was: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02)

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

This is a well written draft, that makes a useful
contribution to a long standing problem and
I fully support its publication as an RFC.

I have a few comments that I would request
that the authors consider and a couple
of nits. I also agree with the points that
Sasha makes, and am also pleased that no
changes are required to this widely deployed
packet transport mechanism.

Firstly I think that you should say a little bit
more about the circuit breaker than you currently
do, in particular the interaction with the control plane
and the restart procedure.

Secondly, whilst Ethernet PWs are a good example
and by far the most common elastic case they are not
the only elastic PWs type. You need a line in the text
pointing out the equivalence and possibly naming
the current types that behave in the same way as
IP.

SB> Where does ATM fit into the taxonomy?

SB> Also what about FC Port Mode?


nits:

such a PW is inable to respond to congestion in a
TCP-like manner;

SB> That should be unable

the packet loss rate PLR

SB> PLR should be (PLR)

The circuit breaker needs a ref on first
use, and maybe a little description since
it is a new concept in PWE3

- Stewart



On 28/07/2014 09:03, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
> Andy and all,
>
> Somehow I did not find an explicit WGLC message for this draft 
> (neither in my archive nor in the WG one).
>
> Nevertheless, I support requesting publication of this draft as an 
> Informational RFC.
>
> I have a few editorial comments:
>
> 1.On page 6 the text says "International standards place stringent 
> limits on the number of such faults tolerated".  I assume the 
> reference is to ITU-T Recommendation G.826, but it would be nice to 
> state that explicitly; I am also not sure whether plural ("standards") 
> is justified here.
>
> 2.Also on page 6, I suggest inserting the multiplication signs 
> (asterisks) in the formula  in the same way it is done in Section 3.1 
> of RFC 5348 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5348> (from which this 
> formula is taken)
>
> 3.On page 11, "Second, the derivation assumed that the TDM PW was 
> competing with long-lived TDM flows" presumably should be "Second, the 
> derivation assumed that the TDM PW was competing with long-lived TCP 
> flows".
>
> 4.On page 18, "Note that if the error condition AIS was detected 
> according to the criteria of ITU-T Recommendation G.775 [G826]" 
> presumably should be "Note that if the error condition AIS was 
> detected according to the criteria of ITU-T Recommendation G.775 [G775]".
>
> IMO neither of these comments requires posting a new version of the 
> draft prior to requesting its publication; hopefully they can be 
> handled in the process of approval and publication.
>
> I'd like to thank Yaakov, David and Bob for their effort. I find very 
> symbolic that the congestion issue that has been raised in the early 
> days of PWE3 is -- at long last -- successfully resolved without any 
> retro-fitting of widely deployed mechanisms defined by the PWE3.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
> Email: [e-mail]
>
> Mobile: [phone]
>
> *From:*pwe3 [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis
> *Sent:* Friday, July 25, 2014 6:23 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [PWE3] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02.pdf is now in PWE3 
> WG last call. As part of the last call process, we need to poll the 
> authors and WG for IPR information on the draft.
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02?
>
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? Note that there
> are currently no IPR disclosures in the IETF datatracker.
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
> to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the PWE3 WG mailing
> list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response
> has been received from each author and each contributor.
>
> If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
> or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
> of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
> rules.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html