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

["qiangli (D)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe and Gorry,

Thanks a lot for your comments. Will make modification accordingly and update before IETF 104 meeting. 

>>(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?

Yes, 1 byte is enough. Since each node has 3 queues, need minimal 2 bits (4 different values) to indicate which queue a packet should enter.


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

The 2 bits' value will be changed/rewritten hop-by-hop, that is what we call " in-transit rewriting " ---- SWAP method
We may use STACK method to reduce such " in-transit rewriting ". Will refine this part in 01 version. 

>> why it wouldn’t be sufficient to just request the next open value?
The reason that why we wrote "127" is "127-253" is a reserved region defined in draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-06, will change "127" to "TBD" in 01 version. Thank you again.


Best regards,

Cristina QIANG


-----Original Message-----
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 4:19 PM
To: Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
Cc: qiangli (D) <[e-mail]>; Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A New Draft Uploaded (draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency-00)

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-bo
>> unded-latency-00.txt
>> Status: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounde
>> d-latency/
>> Htmlized: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-lat
>> ency-00
>> Htmlized: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-b
>> ounded-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
>