[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-ledbat-survey-05

Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com> Mon, 11 April 2011 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tena@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF60E0679; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.392
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.793, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rqKpX1D4B1G; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com []) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31342E066B; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in []) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LJI00KX4B1VBK@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:15:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from TingZousc1 ([]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LJI00HAUB1SON@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:15:31 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:15:29 -0700
From: Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Message-id: <000301cbf88d$9728ecf0$c57ac6d0$@com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-us
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acv4jZV+9vUR9TciTJaRcQ7H4Fmbhw==
Cc: draft-ietf-ledbat-survey@tools.ietf.org, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-ledbat-survey-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:40:39 -0000


I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

A few comments:

2.1.  Accuracy of delay-based congestion predictors
"Finally, in the case of fast or short-distance links, the
      majority of the measured delay can in fact be due to processing in
      the involved hosts; typically, this processing delay is not of
      interest, and it can underly fluctuations that are not related to
      the network at all."
Would "underly" be "underlie"?

AFAIK, LEDBAT is one of the use-cases for ConEx, because there's no
incentive to do LEDBAT while operators count volume, not congestion.

PCN for inelastic traffic is nearly completely orthogonal to LEDBAT. 
But if PCN is used as the active queue mgmt algo for regular elastic
traffic, it does have some overlap with LEDBAT, in that it keeps delay very
low. But there the similarities end.

If this I-D can clarify this relationship a little bit, it would be useful.

We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!

Best Regards,