[trill] Fwd: PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 14 January 2014 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C4A1AE0EE for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:14:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j45yfort6Knx for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22b.google.com (mail-oa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3108C1AE13C for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id m1so9900264oag.2 for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:13:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=r6NkcYzXc5F2KQyYFuSQ3Q1E2SW0HHrRvmLXUilns9A=; b=JEB76Eu4LNZoxZDI0lt6IQxHYiDaKVb1N0bDmeOVWPSj8GyBzxQ4M9hxC68gKX1BfX RyWA7VsprTYoneo1LQZ2e7NG0Xd90usP17VY3h9GY3Yy2m1goFBDDw+l/nFHpdQClSQA Vfpc39Lv6cnyy0y8m55+mbIKzxatGIYi3MFY0+4W+cjPyqO8wY7oraBY4vt8tMNl0nOI shOlPvvZnaVb2JVIP80nF6mSBn5DCMSDx5/eOtiCLYc4NKGJ07Zsem7CwqDZDsL7oVjh L8sWEthx+J4PWghpeSlrcbfl05tsTgHLkH5wwtOvHv8jGrovaTrOuutojKzlgubebWbY PzYw==
X-Received: by 10.183.3.102 with SMTP id bv6mr1793627obd.18.1389716035709; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:13:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.33.102 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:13:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2845723087023D4CB5114223779FA9C8B093D9F7@njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com>
References: <F45DBC0B6261374F8F8D3AF620413DFE0F925471@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <2845723087023D4CB5114223779FA9C8B093D9F7@njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:13:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEnivQVP3yQL_XbjBeRKXF1ZZELm0o0EAWCB2962+1aQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [trill] Fwd: PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:14:11 -0000

Forwarded with permission.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Novak (janovak) [mailto:janovak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 10:58 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Cc: pm-dir@ietf.org
> Subject: PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00
>
> Hi Al,
>
> As promised what feels like life-time ago (after 3 weeks
> in really thin air - for me at least - with no energy left
> to retain any memories of the times before :-)) I have
> read through this draft:
>
> draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00
>
> It uses the metrics defined by the IPPM RFCs 2679, 2680
> and 2681 in very detailed manner - looked like RFC6390 was
> inspired by those :-).
>
> The section 2.2 with the metric definitions for the purpose of
> this document might benefit from clearer references to the IPPM
> work:
>
> 1) The packet delay definitions refer to RFC6905 which then
> just refers to 2679 and 2681
>
> 2) Packet Loss misses the reference at all, I just assumed it would be
> RFC2680 (if not a RFC6390 compliant definition would be needed)
>
> 3) Far-end and near-end loss definitions need the reference as well
> and probably a bit of text explaining it is just a variance of the
> RFC2680 definition specific for the TRILL environment but without
> a need for another fully blown definition
>
> Regards, Jan
>
> The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young, and the
> strong envy them ....
>                                  Dr. Johnson