[Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-03: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 09 May 2018 18:29 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3162D12DA14; Wed, 9 May 2018 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, teas-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152589057519.3994.8881406815830033404.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 11:29:35 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ILhDAjeKk7iWxVYbec9Vtq-Xj4Y>
Subject: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 18:29:35 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-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-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TED/its expansion should be introduced in the Introduction, not the Abstract, since the Abstract and the rest of the document must be able to be read in a standalone manner. In line with Alvaro's comment, I would suggest moving Sections 3.1 through 3.4 into a new parent section "Discarded Options" or similarly-named. Section 3.5 [...] It is RECOMMENDED that the IGP-TE update threshold SHOULD be lower in order to flood unreserved bandwidth updates often. Lower than what? Section 7 It feels odd to say that these "do not require any new security considerations" and then go and list some new security considerations. I would suggest something like "The security considerations of each protocol are unaffected by the presence of the other, so only the interactions of the TED consistency solution with the individual protocols needs to be considered." I would probably also want to expand the text a bit, noting that: A hijacked SR traffic stream could potentially cause disruption to RSVP-TE LSPs in two ways: directly, but consuming sufficient bandwidth to cause traffic loss, and indirectly, by consuming sufficient traffic to result in the TED consistency solution proposed in this document reducing the bandwidth available to RSVP-TE paths. The former is possible whenever RSVP-TE and SR traffic share links, independently of whether this specification is in use; the latter is new behavior with this specifciation but is seen as preferrable to the alternative, since the impact to RSVP-TE traffic can be controlled and paths re-routed. However, some latent risk of disruption remains because this specification is a reactive protcol, relying on taking measurements and only adopting to new traffic flows after the measurement period. The finite duration of the measurement window leaves open a period of potential disruption before remediation can be applied. Appendix A This guidance seems like it could be (very) roughly characterized as "these are the ranges of values that are not insane to use". Is it possible to give more precise/active guidance, such as (taking a wild guess) "Values between 0.9 and 1.1 allow for taking accunt of estimated future traffic growth during the current measurement period while reducing the risk of leaving large amounts of bandwidth underutilized. The measurement period should be smaller than a minute in order for this tight of a growth window to make sense."
- [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Harish Sitaraman
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Benjamin Kaduk