Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13
"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA8D3A0928 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=oUdbDDEF; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.onmicrosoft.com header.b=os3DVSXn
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 gmuCmuub-rGH for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com (mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com [148.163.133.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02D8E3A091F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0170389.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02BFqSI0024958; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:58:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dell.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=Tk9uOKgtYa0kHVnxu16ePdrqnuqEOe9MLs59j+AaVBY=; b=oUdbDDEFl6N6QK12fPfzzqdkHUXuyoITS845Ujbatoq6ux/R8A5IY7Bjb5XyrO8Fj2js 0MB1c5vQZiYBYdhCnpCDXXTsr/Q98hafbF218GLMhhctx7ts8ZeonMAychLX66D4Te5c 1TByAiGANhoDj8eaadQqtgL3wxAqk7VRT2gbmoNOQ+YPi/jigQ09ALNBLhlghviqjNPC iR/ZBJ/RWBBJUfGgry1ZOM5p74L7AlGuFknsB+6iqFt/ac0cosoJHhCi3e70hw4fpV0j VjBgXgNGRsHJUEvsT/+qn0mj/4OuLFaroyxHnraJzVoR4YglDphXZeT4Esqhn9iZF0ro jg==
Received: from mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com [67.231.149.39]) by mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ypk293xrs-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:58:44 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (m0142693.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02BFdgHg153573; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:58:43 -0400
Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ypjy858s4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:58:43 -0400
Received: from m0142693.ppops.net (m0142693.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 02BFwhxD189338; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:58:43 -0400
Received: from nam12-mw2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam12lp2044.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.66.44]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ypjy858rw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:58:43 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=cTw/yJ+EIxIWgiuX0icu2k6FMngAFSXl9N80v2IxPBylkX2Aw7R9+jh7l8YzzNGt4BMqk1YpfUefrPtq7Mewu2d9GCoCdlTkD0yjWUD0eOn5/No/Y8/Rm8FfU5Rp8134KPnr5NtutRkwgXytBwbtwIgt3WPHmhfV8OIBk0yLucYaqL8Cfm2AjwvTqcHX87NbMB8ncRYPa/RnZ8FuMFebHpCsCSsTXOdsKP/X5VTkNKyktAdrWIjP0VHB+dcJAK47kZsvDJVQtEpGFlLSGssbg4oriCobLhS3R+f99Wxg5/oQ0QKmcj6O4y1Na6d6g5b2g2djQnYZLP9O8mV1UzItrA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;bh=Tk9uOKgtYa0kHVnxu16ePdrqnuqEOe9MLs59j+AaVBY=; b=OzzAUVVII6LhY0eInpYZhJhHeGxEE3KCF+k+12utthY2KXP0brqm5mktRoh4ckND5IDfu/94oiG61/ch/izAw0ii08sndCvfFnJgxjfKX4eW2ru+K41swM/6edg16iQtuD2s4rOxAK1fiEcJaE4fR2GfEAOo+zqMAuSaD9y7z2KGvBxyQGQdgK7lujsiQ0+VoD949b6m5jGYvl56nEBp1slMKsNC3Ejai0CRWVkkpy2E7ctcIzdv0Pw3D828ckh1lshGhquuw9MEW/PwHwsu4R6wvdjIXjQv6fVaBkCz6gthxkm5pkK9zFWwCplC619UGoKD47VK70Hm35pQd5cKVA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dell.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=dell.com; dkim=pass header.d=dell.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Dell.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-Dell-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Tk9uOKgtYa0kHVnxu16ePdrqnuqEOe9MLs59j+AaVBY=; b=os3DVSXneiBq7zP3Xt9OfG6fYVozYOh69s1ufWTNsrsTTFQgXlcGyvXnnQQrXrKoktY6iwzEhuxrWJSF7OHZaZM8RGfS277tsMx6rQZZrh24VFP7VPVa5ZUvPQM8PJrQ4RdrhTCHUUZeDHuvvu6/aG7gwjDVSMNtF0dcM+VaUhc=
Received: from DM6PR19MB4042.namprd19.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:243::20) by DM6PR19MB3708.namprd19.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:202::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2793.17; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:58:41 +0000
Received: from DM6PR19MB4042.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d52a:fd92:c7f8:6691]) by DM6PR19MB4042.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d52a:fd92:c7f8:6691%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2793.018; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:58:41 +0000
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
CC: John Kaippallimalil <John.Kaippallimalil@huawei.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13
Thread-Index: AQHV3UGySdCE6Xpe/ESkXcPpovJh/ahCSCwAgACHZ4CAAIdbgIAAadYA
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:58:41 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR19MB4042F02F500CE298A90FA7CB83FC0@DM6PR19MB4042.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAF4+nEGu9XEiXypPw0NK+f2N9QbBwyTJKXbViKWVScJhOW=vUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEEB2-pz4ugW-m1-3gq9KH-fyt93sLZ9WFh4BkJqQPX7PA@mail.gmail.com> <56499dde-81f1-5bd7-fd7c-67a201376e6a@bobbriscoe.net> <CAF4+nEGcXgfbMYQCmoFaVHetu36mXwj2Md0S6poEAKsgYmLn-w@mail.gmail.com> <7ad9dd01-2b54-fc09-f90d-0a9ecaaa42b1@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <7ad9dd01-2b54-fc09-f90d-0a9ecaaa42b1@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SiteId=945c199a-83a2-4e80-9f8c-5a91be5752dd;MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Owner=david.black@emc.com; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SetDate=2020-03-11T15:58:38.6966248Z; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Name=External Public; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Extended_MSFT_Method=Manual; aiplabel=External Public
x-originating-ip: [168.159.213.214]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7e12153f-dc84-450f-af82-08d7c5d511b9
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR19MB3708:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR19MB370832C28A4F3F5ADE8AE97983FC0@DM6PR19MB3708.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
x-exotenant: 2khUwGVqB6N9v58KS13ncyUmMJd8q4
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0339F89554
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(376002)(136003)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(199004)(966005)(110136005)(66476007)(316002)(786003)(33656002)(66556008)(76116006)(66446008)(4326008)(54906003)(186003)(7696005)(64756008)(66946007)(26005)(81156014)(71200400001)(53546011)(6506007)(2906002)(478600001)(5660300002)(52536014)(9686003)(81166006)(8936002)(8676002)(86362001)(55016002)(336755003)(18886065003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR19MB3708; H:DM6PR19MB4042.namprd19.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: dell.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: JS+rDkWlkvpn0zm22kNfhR4CyDHjgNDM4K0kNKBOeVTCo9E21BhjnbJbChJVK7ZEwiDwQzVNHeE8+YcpA5Mllj4buoL62VJ6OfdOXtyVZJGO0hizkHPmL7eGWuFiqPCYfsXfV1NDD1I9jErRVdVZOw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Dell.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7e12153f-dc84-450f-af82-08d7c5d511b9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Mar 2020 15:58:41.1605 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 945c199a-83a2-4e80-9f8c-5a91be5752dd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: i9IzfNH/K5EuoA73vs/kMNPTWXjtp99LFkt5T0Xw9FWH7Gp8cTogGNraElkWYqlup17DuuOoPJJV57YYZTAmrA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR19MB3708
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-03-11_05:2020-03-11, 2020-03-11 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2003110098
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2003110098
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/HccoTTKdruXIMgiJ2x5TIyAxmhY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:59:30 -0000
To tie off the Section 4.4 loose end, I'm ok with resolving this by stopping at ".. the packet SHOULD be dropped.": > >> Any better (I've added some of the context for the list)?: > >> > >> If the congestion marking is the > >> most severe possible, the packet MUST be dropped. However, if > >> congestion can be marked with multiple levels of severity and > >> the packet's marking is not the most severe, this requirement > >> can be relaxed to: the packet SHOULD be dropped, but it MAY be > >> forwarded. > > As per subsequent discussion in this thread, if you are OK with > > stopping at "... the packet SHOULD be dropped." that would certainly > > resolve my comment. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bob Briscoe > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 5:38 AM > To: Donald Eastlake > Cc: John Kaippallimalil; tsvwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13 > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > Donald, > > Thanks - all in my local copy, which will hopefully be uploaded shortly, > depending on the other discussion about fragmentation. > I'll point you at that, given you're not subscribed to the list. > > > Bob > > On 11/03/2020 01:33, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:28 PM Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net> wrote: > >> Donald, > >> > >> Thank you for taking the time to review this (rather long) draft. > >> Apologies for not getting to your review until now. > >> > >> On 06/02/2020 23:03, Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm not subscribed to the tsvwg mailing list but I have reviewed draft-ietf- > tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13 and though you might be interested in my > comments. > >> > >> Overall, this is a very clear and well-written draft. The comments below are > minor. Whether or not they are incorporated into the draft, I hope that it can > be advanced soon. > >> > >> Section 1. I suggest just deleting the one occurrence in the draft of > "[RFC1323]" and the corresponding reference section entry. It seems > unnecessary and just leads to a nits checker warning which will have to be > explained, etc. > >> > >> Section 1.1. Very minor but I believe the usual way, inside a draft, to refer to > the RFC which that draft might become is "[this document]" (without the double > quotes) rather than "[RFCXXXX]". Changing to the more common notation > would, I believe, enable the RFC Editor note to be removed as "[this document]" > is well understood by the RFC Editor. > >> > >> Section 2. The initial paragraph on implementation keywords should be > updated to the following as per RFC 8174: > >> > >> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > >> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in > this > >> document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174] > >> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. > >> > >> Done all the above > >> (BTW, I always baulk at having to cite RFC8174, when the following 12 > words succinctly state the sum total of its content.) > > Thanks. I understand how you feel but currently the IESG likes the > > boilerplate with RFC 8174 reference... > > > >> Section 2. Suggest putting the Terminology entries in alphabetic order.. > >> > >> I haven't done this. They are more for reading through than for being looked > up individually, most of them fall into logical little groups, and there are not so > many that it's hard to find one. > > OK. > > > >> Section 4.2, page 18. "802.1p" has been merged into 802.1Q ages ago. > Values of the priority field are commonly referred to in IEEE 802.1 as Priority > Code Points (PCPs) and in any case this seems a bit inconsistent to the way that > the merger of 802.1ah into 802.1Q is recognized in the draft. Perhaps the last > sentence of Section 4.2 could be: "An operator can define certain [IEEE802.1Q] > Priority Code Points to indicate non-QCN frames and an ingress bridge is > required to map arriving not-QCN-capable IP packets to one of these code > points." > >> > >> OK. I've taken on board the spirit of your edit, but changed it slightly: > >> > >> An operator can define certain > >> Priority Code Points (PCPs [IEEE802.1Q]; previously 802.1p) to > >> indicate non-QCN frames and an ingress bridge is required to map > >> arriving not-QCN-capable IP packets to one of these non-QCN PCPs. > >> > >> This is then consistent with the other references to 802.1Q, which also give > the number of the constituent part before it was wrapped up into the mega- > standard. If you think this is clumsy, pls say. I did it this way, because many > people know these 802.1 drafts much better by their old name (well, for 'many > people' read 'me', or perhaps read it as 'old farts like me'). > > I'm fine with your wording. No problem mentioning 802.1p as long as it > > doesn't send people off looking for a current version of that but > > rather makes it clear that the relevant material in now in 802.1Q. > > > >> Section 4.4, point 1, first starred subpoint, there is something odd about "the > packet MAY be forwarded, but it SHOULD be dropped". > >> > >> Any better (I've added some of the context for the list)?: > >> > >> If the congestion marking is the > >> most severe possible, the packet MUST be dropped. However, if > >> congestion can be marked with multiple levels of severity and > >> the packet's marking is not the most severe, this requirement > >> can be relaxed to: the packet SHOULD be dropped, but it MAY be > >> forwarded. > > As per subsequent discussion in this thread, if you are OK with > > stopping at "... the packet SHOULD be dropped." that would certainly > > resolve my comment. > > > >> Section 7. It doesn't matter much but IANA would prefer that sections saying > there are no IANA actions be left in the final RFC (see Section 9.1 of RFC 8126). > >> > >> I'm learning something new every day. > >> > >> > >> Section 9. Should "the document" in the first line of this section by "this > document"? > >> > >> Yes. Done. > >> > >> > >> Appendix A. I did not review this update history. > >> > >> Authors' Addresses: I don't think Pat Thaler can be listed as a front page > "author" in the RFC sense unless at least an email address is listed for her. All > authors should be pollable about IPR they know and when the draft gets to the > AUTH48 state before RFC publication, the RFC editor must be able to contact all > the authors. If no email address is known, she should be moved to a > "Contributors" section or the like. > >> > >> Yes. I discovered that (too late) last night, when the draft got rejected on > this point! > >> I've added a Contributors section for her. > > OK, all seems good. > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > =============================== > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > > d3e3e3@gmail.com > > > >> Thank you again. > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > ________________________________________________________________ > >> Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-gu… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-enca… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-enca… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-enca… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-enca… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-enca… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-enca… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-enca… Black, David