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

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Stewart,

Thanks for your quick comments as well.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  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: [e-mail]
>
> Mobile: [phone]
>
>
>
> *From:* Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 2:16 PM
> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein; Andrew G. Malis
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *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: [e-mail]
>
> Mobile: [phone]
>
>
>
> *From:* pwe3 [mailto:[e-mail] <[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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>