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

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<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