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

Those refs would be handy. I think that it just takes a couple
of sentences and will anticipate the various directorate and
IESG review comments.

S

On 28/07/2014 13:11, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
> Stewart and all,
>
> I fully agree with you that the term "circuit breaker" has not been 
> used in the PWE3 discussions until now.
>
> However, I think that it has been implicitly defined in Section 6.5. 
> of RFC 3985 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3985#section-6.5>, and its 
> usage has been defined also in Section 8 of RFC 4553 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4553#section-8>.
>
> Not sure how important this is; but if the authors decide to expand 
> the "circuit breaker" notion, these references could be handy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
> Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
> Mobile: 054-9266302
>
> *From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 2:16 PM
> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein; Andrew G. Malis
> *Cc:* pwe3@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [PWE3] WG Last call for draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02? 
> (was: IPR poll for draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02)
>
> 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: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>     <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
>
>     Mobile: 054-9266302
>
>     *From:*pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
>     G. Malis
>     *Sent:* Friday, July 25, 2014 6:23 PM
>     *To:* pwe3@ietf.org <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
>     *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
>
>     pwe3@ietf.org  <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
>
>     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
>   

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

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