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

Yaakov,

There's a precedent for RFCs that only have the diagrams in the PDF
version. As one example that comes to mind, see RFC 1144.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com> wrote:

>  Stewart,
>
>
>
> I referenced the circuit breaker work where it  first mentioned in a
> substantive way,
>
> rather than in passing in the introduction. Of course I can add the
> reference further up.
>
>
>
> The draft uses Ethernet PWs as the archetypical elastic PW.
>
> The conclusion is true for any PW carrying congestion responsive traffic,
>
> but the proof for other cases, e.g., for TCP/IP over ATM over PW is harder.
>
> Some may recall that I explicitly covered this case in an earlier version
> of this draft,
>
> but my co-authors thought that it added little to the flow of the argument,
>
> at a cost of a long digression and having to use language with which the
> transport area people
>
> would not be comfortable.
>
>
>
> A more major issue is what happens when the Ethernet PW carries
>
> half TCP traffic and half UDP traffic. This we specifically avoided.
>
>
>
> Of course, the major problem with this draft is going to be the pictures!
>
> But as Alice asked “what is the use of an RFC without pictures?”.
>
> (I’m waiting for Bob and Eve to answer that one)
>
>
>
> Y(J)S
>
>
>
> *From:* pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Stewart Bryant
> *Sent:* 28 July, 2014 06:16
> *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
>
> Mobile: 054-9266302
>
>
>
> *From:* pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis
> *Sent:* Friday, July 25, 2014 6:23 PM
> *To:* 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>