Re: [Tsv-art] 2 really urgent review requests

You can assign me if that helps 

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:07 PM
> To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
> Cc: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>; tsv-art@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] 2 really urgent review requests
> 
> Hi Micheal,
> 
> thanks! That's very helpful. Can we just ‚officially‘ assign this review to you
> and you enter these comments in the datatracker accordingly, such that the
> authors will also know about it and be able to fix it…?
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> > Am 26.10.2017 um 13:01 schrieb Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)
> <michael.scharf@nokia.com>:
> >
> > I have quickly scanned through draft-ietf-6man-maxra-03, even if this is
> outside my area of expertise.
> >
> > I think the document has to better describe the impact of setting K to a
> large value (K >> 3), as a large K increases seems to increase the amount of
> needless traffic and could theoretically even result in congestion (or needless
> energy consumption).
> >
> > Specifically, Section 3 explains that "K~=1 gives 99% reliability, K~=2 gives
> 99.99% reliability, and K~=3 gives 99.9999% reliability - the latter should be
> good enough for a lot of scenarios". I don't think there is a major issue for
> these values of K. But as far as I understand , what is missing is an explicit
> statement regarding the downside of larger values of K .
> >
> > Specifically, I believe that in Section 4.  "Updates to RFC4861" ...
> >
> >   As explained in Section 3, the relationship between MaxRtrAdvInterval
> >   and AdvDefaultLifetime must be chosen to take into account the
> >   probability of packet loss.
> >
> > ... some additional guidance should be added regarding the tradeoff of
> reliability and needless traffic (or energy consumption).
> >
> > As a nit, I wonder about the unit of "MaxRtrAdvInterval" in ...
> >
> >   MaxRtrAdvInterval MUST be no greater than 65535.  AdvDefaultLifetime
> >   MUST either be zero (the router is not to be used as a default
> >   router) or be a value between MaxRtrAdvInterval and 65535.
> >
> > According to RFC 4861 the parameter "MaxRtrAdvInterval" is in seconds but
> this is missing here.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I could just spent 15min on the doc...
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tsv-art [mailto:tsv-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> >> Stiemerling
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:22 AM
> >> To: tsv-art@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [Tsv-art] Fwd: 2 really urgent review requests
> >>
> >> used a wrong sender address...
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> >> Betreff: 2 really urgent review requests
> >> Datum: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:55:29 +0200
> >>
> >> An: tsv-art@ietf.org
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> There are two drafts with a request by Mirja to review them, but
> >> these two drafts are on the telechat today:
> >>
> >> draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-11
> >> draft-ietf-6man-maxra-03
> >>
> >> I am full loaded today and won't be able to read them, but does
> >> anybody else have a free slot before 3 pm CEST to briefly review
> >> these two or one of these drafts?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >>   Martin
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tsv-art mailing list
> >> Tsv-art@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tsv-art mailing list
> > Tsv-art@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art