Re: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

I'm really encouraging you to do a quick revision: It would be really 
helpful if you did the update suggested by Joe, to align so it's 
conformant with the way in which the assignments are supposed to be made.

A few quick observations on the -00 draft:

(1) Please replace the "KIND" number with the text "TBD", and see Joe's 
comment on the IANA section.

(2) This may is a chance to fix this typo that occurs several places: 
/filed/field/.

(3) Is Length in figure 5 really 1 byte? This is the total length of the 
option, and I see you have at least one byte additional. Is your length 
of the option variable or fixed?

(4) I don't understand this:

   "One way to relieve in-transit rewriting is to pre-compute the sending
    cycles along the way, then carry them with multiple SC options."

I wonder: Do you imagine the path adds options as the packet travels 
through the routers? Or is this a suggestion that the option field can 
have multiple values present within this?  These are quite different 
proposals, and I suggest you place this text in a separate subsection?

Best wishes,

Gorry


On 08/03/2019, 03:43, Joe Touch wrote:
> Two points (the first is useful for everyone developing upcoming UDP 
> options):
>
> 1. proposals for new UDP options should indicate a KIND value of “TBD” 
> only; they should not ‘squat’ or preselect a value until assigned by 
> IANA (when the UDP options doc is published) or - until the UDP doc is 
> published - at least the doc is accepted as a WG doc.
>
> 2. a request for such assignment should be included in the IANA 
> considerations portion of that document
>
> These are common conventions for assigned numbers in general.
>
> As a result, I encourage the authors to quickly issue an update to 
> this doc that follows the above convention.
>
> Additionally, if accepted, can you explain why it wouldn’t be 
> sufficient to just request the next open value?
>
> Joe
>
>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 5:22 PM, qiangli (D) <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>> We have uploaded a new draft 
>> (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00) that explores the 
>> use of UDP options for bounded latency forwarding. Review and comment 
>> is highly appreciated.
>> Best regards,
>> Cristina QIANG
>> ==============================================
>> A new version of I-D, 
>> draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Li Qiang and posted to the IETF 
>> repository.
>> Name:               draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency
>> Revision:  00
>> Title:                  UDP Options for Bounded Latency
>> Document date:       2019-03-08
>> Group:               Individual Submission
>> Pages:               9
>> URL: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00.txt
>> Status: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency/
>> Htmlized: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00
>> Htmlized: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency
>> Abstract:
>>    This document explores the use of UDP options for packet forwarding
>>    with bounded latency.
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available 
>> attools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
>> The IETF Secretariat
>