Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Fri, 17 June 2016 12:12 UTC
Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BA312D516 for <tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mojatatu-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 PfMx6afcQqlW for <tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E513912D0F3 for <tsv-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l44so37985334qgd.0 for <tsv-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mojatatu-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aHtKYuuUCO73PqPeak90MHUOQYuckN3SqBstEiUYxPU=; b=J5oCw/JMg5rmoM4aeFMOmyJ6vMhrVK6/nOClYzCqi1/SuSf/6Pw9OSV8IOWFbrw0UN CcicriZT8GIsdU7P0Og+FpToLvSofYT7Y61NVW4FiiOqaIeCPwnFouBBgj+YobgtjoTo pXfFAmPmn+9iSONXvvqEYpAnVyzb3+Uw26yjCK0ke1EHxv+j+CnGckAyfUowhZEZsvkC Bz7rl9PtNeW3WtP5JghWbJwORmJQsdIjcRWJEkZmvovGKwSbwBzQIu7yUOILu7kI+HK1 7maoJ73azId6UdeBe9DTkaPL8mMHS4IbzWLZ3Yc+N2yJjv/6C83g2c0nkLALfz/K/CXD DkfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aHtKYuuUCO73PqPeak90MHUOQYuckN3SqBstEiUYxPU=; b=V9e4zr9dNB2sdV0ZjZGlIgOqWtaMqBC6mMDLOWx7tcyopydw6EeZYgzhjD/iFfAEYt vvPuQveNzGqVLdEtOCiJBhZQGXMn4iVqgTBX3bpO1vDFgD0CYd8+H3bWlEtRFGwv2Zm/ WApQP6RJlAO9pOtkyp4IzUoz2zC6WvE4ibcF99WdAittjk4LYADyMEYCoCXZZ5yoTXmI doTMXfTnn4Qg4cEEQbx6ciLjvLudjYswctxTWtQXDW74FrO/gv2kvDPG5vbsAoO1NDno Cvkd2uAsr+wDlF8CwjUGABRFYn3REshwh1YR9E42hzbDfNHy09Z30wueQ32O540y3lzb gTYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKaSJFCP2ky30NVaH9SNVlsNHpA8sC3rNeNMR8f3hLP4920Vqh2RvXU7QYyL9MDdMhn5udq2Rw83S2fcQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.109.198 with SMTP id l64mr1646682qgf.65.1466165572019; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.87.3 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <be645f8a-61f3-7676-bd97-97b6049aa215@isi.edu>
References: <be645f8a-61f3-7676-bd97-97b6049aa215@isi.edu>
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:12:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAFAkD_8AzGvvVEd34Fit0KT764bUxgLKSikb9WKJ2fDKiDFOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113a49361a6f6205357846de"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/s8TyCZAWq_0qDIJurCDT68OFOSY>
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb@tools.ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:12:55 -0000
Hi Joe, Thanks for your review - responses below: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote: > Hi, all, > > I've reviewed this draft as part of the TSV Area Review Team, paying > special attention to transport-related concerns. Please take these as > any other IETF last call comments. > > Joe > > --- > > The document contains two different types of transport issues: its > relation to supporting transport traffic and the way it exchanges > information between the FEs. > > The document's discussion of the impact on supporting transport traffic > is sufficient. I'm not sure I concur with citing RFC5405bis as > informational, because the correctness of the proposed approach to > congestion control relies directly on definitions of controlled > environments available only in the -bis update. I would prefer that > claims using normative language necessitate using cited references as > Normative. > > This has come up before. So i think we'll just make it a normative reference in the next update (which i plan to publish after this discussion) > The document uses Ethernet as a "transport", as stated in Sec 3.1.1. The > claim that this is "simpler" than using UDP would benefit from a few > sentences of substantiation, especially because Ethernet does not > support fragmentation, which has an impact on the solutions proposed in > Sec 5.1.1 (see below). > The reference point is the common deployment use cases; within a single rack or network owned by one admin who does all the setup. Any suggestion on wording you'd like to see? > Sec 5.1.3 indicates that packet sizes increase due to the ForCES > metadata (using encapsulation indicated in Sec 5.2), which could exceed > the Ethernet MTU as noted in Sec 5.1.1. Sec 5.1.1 suggests an approach > of falsifying MTU information, but this could also result in a reported > Ethernet MTU below the required minimum of 1500. This case should be > addressed in Sec 5.1.1. > > Thanks. Will fix. > Other comments: > > Sec 5.2: The Ethertype listed should be replaced with "Ethertype-TBD" > with a corresponding note to update that text in Sec 9 / IEEE Assignment > Considerations. The draft should not use a specific unassigned value, > even if currently available, until assigned. (it currently cites > 0xFEFE). This section should also refer to the Metadata IDs directly, > either by name or by registry, as if assuming that IANA has created that > registry. > > Yes, this also came up in earlier review. I will upload with this fixed as well. Thanks again Joe for taking the time. cheers, jamal --- > > > >
- Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-forces… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-forces… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-forces… Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-forces-int… Joe Touch