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]>]

Sasha,

Thanks for this note! For some reason, the WG last call never made it onto
the list, so I just resent it.

And thanks for your comments on the draft. These will be addressed during
publication along with other received comments.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Alexander Vainshtein <
[e-mail]> 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
>