Re: [Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03: (with COMMENT)

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 01 October 2015 13:59 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150930230428.1033.52470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150930230428.1033.52470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:59:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rd3ZGS8RRuREkOZTWB2QQeTTd-T5K9iT-ceLZNeisC-AQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1663ef6a80c05210b747d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/H0VRJ_sTY1Izys4wRMzX0nlzaQU>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org)" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Stephen,

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> - The shepherd write up says no IPR declarations, but the tracker
> disagrees. Did the WG consider the (in this case fairly innocuous)
> IPR declaration? [1]
>
>    [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2200/
>
> - Are there unexpanded acronyms here? Be worth a pass to check.
>

The ones that I checked are all in the RFC Editor's well-known ones.

> - section 1: "plagued prior attempts" screams out that it needs a
> reference or two.
>

This is referring to the ARPANET's effort to use metrics a long time
back.  I've seen the metric function - and it was a bit naive.  I don't have
a good reference for it, though.

- section 4: I'm surprised there is no mention of the possible
> impact of (D)DoS on this. Couldn't that affect path selection based
> on metrics? If so, shouldn't you say how?
>

I'm not sure what you are thinking of??  The performance metrics are
based on running averages (15 minutes or more) to avoid substantial
oscillation; this is covered in RFC 7471.   The path computation is a
control-plane function that primarily operates on "reserved bandwidth"
as well as these performance metrics.

Regards,
Alia

Re: [Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Alia Atlas