Re: [tsvwg] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 9:00 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Warren, pls see [BB2]
>
> On 01/12/2023 01:07, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>
> Warren, Thanks for your review - see [BB]
>
> On 30/11/2023 00:03, Warren Kumari via Datatracker wrote:
>
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for this document, and to Tim Wicinski for the OpsDir review
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2023-10-31/).
>
> I think that it would have been helpful for the Abstract to be more specific
> about the "Updates" - "This document is included in BCP 89 and updates the
> advice to subnetwork designers about ECN in RFC 3819." -- how does it update
> the advice? What has changed from RFC3819? The purpose of this is to help
> readers of the abstract understand what changed / where to focus their
> attention, and this seems to boil down to "read the whole document".
>
>
> [BB] PROPOSED:
> This document is included in BCP 89 and *the whole document* updates the*single paragraph of* advice to subnetwork designers about ECN in RFC 3819.
>
> Let me know if this is still not sufficient.
>
> (FYI, that single para in 3819 was:
>
>    Another possible approach to flow control in the subnet would be to
>    work with TCP Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) semantics
>    [RFC3168 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3168>] through utilizing explicit congestion indicators in subnet
>    frames.  Routers at the edges of the subnet, rather than shaping,
>    would set the explicit congestion bit in those IP packets that are
>    received in subnet frames that have an ECN indication.  Nodes in the
>    subnet would need to implement an active queue management protocol
>    that marks subnet frames instead of dropping them.
>
> )
>
>
> [BB2] Replacing my own proposal (following an offlist suggestion by the
> doc shepherd):
>
> This document is included in BCP 89 and updates the *single paragraph of *advice
> to subnetwork designers about ECN *in section 13 of* RFC 3819*, by
> replacing it with a reference to the whole of this document*.
>
>

Awesome! As Gory says: "Thanks for the improvement".

W




> Bob
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>