Re: [tsvwg] David Black's WGLC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-12

"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Thu, 16 May 2019 17:15 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 2572B120025 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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=GhagON24; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=oGyqYXHn
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 0gOjNfhJqQhh for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com [148.163.137.20]) (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 0CB7A120117 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0170397.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4GH9s1k018129; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:14:07 -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 : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=Of/W2NfESjmzLN8mm+GZIGP7seE0ENXwtRFXD2VDpBQ=; b=GhagON24cS9SfRvZcqhwcuqlfZLbUsOSiBEhrv8vKRU9k8rQpSX5hC4zBatcavKb4UXs dmMQPwBiirN4O0l0wrLv/QERQtSt2JdP7mvEPnPuBaBHVdMW9YYWk3oFrJ+xsCuasQcq xxxc2+9ROOrk+9YZrbwGkIsqcyccOof4Zy0BwfSEpLYJrX6aI8EyLj2+KXuoVaFK4kQA rQwPHk3wPeOf7S8jeM8U3AKs99SClJmjNdn654+Sog7dfJZLy29PQF4uTxOwneO1hrzS iiDIwAD8seqc3gUHFWQjr4QnXVj1kQW4HU3RNFfU3/8FdZoK7IT2QKzr/6dPJ8df+Yht QA==
Received: from mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com [67.231.149.39]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sgeujwyw7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:14:06 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (m0142699.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4GHD3we008589; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:14:05 -0400
Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sh8kv4c9h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:14:05 -0400
Received: from m0142699.ppops.net (m0142699.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4GHDSNb009582; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:14:04 -0400
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sh8kv4c93-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:14:04 -0400
Received: from maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.38]) by mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x4GHDw0J003373 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:14:02 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com x4GHDw0J003373
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1558026843; bh=nacA0ElQK1wkklZuhsJ76OZYblI=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=oGyqYXHnmfQkOi8hds9iQk19tmKB2I5g1DwVHb1mbVmhiUqLWnfRA8VUaLG9eJDcp Qw6JScj5/e4Atpej/CeBeILw98UngcA8oLpnZeOCpVupNkxJAi97QVrLA7NLs66Lal RvFK/CLRDm6qKzAykcGueRWlmLcLGqrpMNPB1KKU=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com x4GHDw0J003373
Received: from mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.25]) by maildlpprd06.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:13:26 -0400
Received: from MXHUB305.corp.emc.com (MXHUB305.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.31]) by mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x4GHDdtc027184 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 May 2019 13:13:40 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB305.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:13:39 -0400
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] David Black's WGLC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-12
Thread-Index: AdUF+PJKfYny0XdBSEe2JZXBy1PR5AFnnW2AABxCnBA=
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 17:13:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363056B1F5@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363055BB8D@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <247a9990-30c0-b0ea-5e3d-2a0b2ae57a95@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <247a9990-30c0-b0ea-5e3d-2a0b2ae57a95@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.21.130]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363056B1F5MX307CL04corpem_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-16_14:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905160109
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905160109
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Q0uzcA6MgMLf6FlvwHR6yG4yqNM>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] David Black's WGLC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-12
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: Thu, 16 May 2019 17:15:11 -0000

Bob,

Thanks for the comprehensive response, most of which I agree with.   Please also take note of Joe Touch's comments on fragmentation and the relationship to draft-intarea-tunnels.

I have a few more comments - anything that isn't mentioned here is fine with me.

i)
> Expanded sentence at the end of Intro to:
> "This document updates and completely replaces the brief paragraph of advice to subnetwork designers about ECN in Section 13 of [RFC3819] (BCP 89)."

That'll suffice for now - I still expect to get dinged on this by an AD during IESG evaluation, but we can wait until then to determine what else is required.

ii)
> [D] Page 5, first complete paragraph
[... snip ...]

> Done; added:
> "Similarly, if the DSCP is wiped at the boundary between Diffserv domains, the special ECN semantics would also be lost."

wiped -> changed (e.g., zeroed)

iii)
> ECN-PDU:  A PDU that is part of a feedback loop within which all the
>    nodes that need to propagate the explicit congestion notification
>    signal in the PDU back to the Load Regulator are ECN-capable of doing so.

I think this improved definition needs an additional hair-splitting clarification:

A PDU that is -> A PDU whose congestion indication (if any) is

The rationale for this clarification is to exclude signals back to the Load Regulator, e.g., TCP ECE.

> I've also extended the above correction into the next definition:

> Not-ECN-PDU:  A PDU that is part of a feedback-loop within which some at least one

>    node necessary to propagate the explicit congestion notification signal in the PDU

>    back to the load regulator are is not ECN-capable of doing so.

And apply the same change to this definition also.

Thanks, --David

From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 7:28 PM
To: Black, David; tsvwg@ietf.org
Cc: John Kaippallimalil
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] David Black's WGLC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-12


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
David,

I've addressed all your points inline (and RS's and AMcG's points in recent emails).

I've edited my local copy of the draft as I describe. I'll submit it in a few hours time. I'm off to bed now, and in the morning I just want to double-check I haven't missed anyone's comments before posting it. That might also allow you, my co-author or anyone else enough time to come back on any of my responses below before I post...

On 09/05/2019 01:10, Black, David wrote:
First of all, this is a well-written and comprehensive draft on ECN encapsulation design guidelines.

I found no major issues, and all of the minor issues are truly minor - some border on editorial,
and all can be dealt with via relatively minor edits..

--- Minor ---

[A] Need an explicit statement of exactly what the update to RFC 3819 is,
preferably in a section whose name uses "RFC 3819" and appears in the
table of contents.  Do this before some AD tells you to ;-).  This is
also the only thing that idnits found that needs attention.

RFC 3819 contained a paragraph of brief musings on how subnetworks might handle ECN. So ecn-encap completely replaces that para with a whole document. I hope the new text quoted below is sufficient to explain that there is no specific section that updates RFC 3819. Rather the whole document does:

Copied sentence below from end of intro to abstract:
"This document updates the advice to subnetwork designers about ECN in RFC 3819."

Expanded sentence at the end of Intro to:
"This document updates and completely replaces the brief paragraph of advice to subnetwork designers about ECN in Section 13 of [RFC3819] (BCP 89)."



[B] 1. Introduction, first paragraph, last sentence

The phrase "egress at any layer" is too general, hence incorrect (e.g.,
layer 7 was not intended to be included) - "lower layer" needs to be
used for clarity.

OLD
   If an egress at any layer is not ECN-aware, or if the
   ultimate receiver or sender is not ECN-aware, congestion needs to be
   indicated by dropping a packet, not marking it.
NEW
   If a lower layer header that may contain ECN congestion indications is
   removed by an egress that is not ECN-aware, or if the ultimate receiver or
   sender is not ECN-aware, then lower layer congestion needs to be indicated
   by dropping a packet, not marking it.
END
Thx. Used verbatim (except s/an egress/a subnet egress/).



[C] 1.1 Scope

Second paragraph and the two-bullet list imply that RFC 4774 states that use
of ECT(1) to signal alternative ECN semantics is a best current practice.
That's not correct, as RFC 4774 covers only the first bullet on use of DSCP,
not the second bullet on use of ECT(1), as that second bullet is based solely
on RFC 8311. Some rewriting is in order to disconnect the second bullet from
RFC 4774.
Done:
"There are two main examples for how alternative ECN semantics have been defined in practice:
    o RFC 4774 suggests...
    o RFC 8311 suggests..."



Based on this, all other places where RFC 4774 is mentioned or cited should
be checked to determine whether RFC 8311 also ought to be mentioned or cited.
Done.

The one other occurrence of RFC4774 says:
    "The guidelines are also designed to ensure compliance with the more general best current practice for the design of alternate ECN schemes given in [RFC4774]..."

Added: "...and extended by [RFC8311]"




[D] Page 5, first complete paragraph

   Alternative semantics for the ECN field can be defined to depend on
   the traffic class indicated by the DSCP.  Therefore correct
   propagation of congestion signals could depend on correct propagation
   of the DSCP between the layers.

This also depends on correct propagation across diffserv boundaries - that
and the potential damage wrought by bleaching DSCPs to zero at such boundaries
both deserve mention here.
Done; added:
"Similarly, if the DSCP is wiped at the boundary between Diffserv domains, the special ECN semantics would also be lost."




[E] 1.1 Scope, end of section

   In the feed-backward mode, propagation of
   congestion signals for multicast and anycast packets is out-of-scope
   (because it would be so complicated that it is hoped no-one would
   attempt such an abomination).

Much as I may agree with it :-), the parenthetical remark is inappropriate
for an archival RFC, and hence needs to be removed.
When doing transport area reviews, I have criticised other authors for just ruling stuff out of scope without justification or explanation of the implications. So rather than delete, I've toned this down:

"... (because the complexity would make it unlikely to be attempted)."

BTW, for archival documents IMO light-heartedness is no less appropriate than unrelenting blandness.



[F] 2. Terminology



   ECN-PDU:  A PDU that is part of a feedback loop within which all the
      nodes that need to propagate explicit congestion notifications
      back to the Load Regulator are ECN-capable.

That first sentence is too broad as it includes both the forward and
reverse directions of the feedback loop, whereas only the forward
direction is intended (FWIW, the definition of PDU does not suffice to
narrow this to the forward direction only).  For example, a TCP packet
with the ECE flag set in the TCP header and Not-ECT in the ECN field in
the IP header would be an ECN-PDU under this definition, which is not
what was intended.  The immediately following definition of Not-ECN-PDU
has the same problem.
The point of building on the OSI term 'PDU' was because a PDU is defined by the layer that is stated as relevant. By the OSI definition, a PDU at a certain layer does not include lower layer headers that encapsulate it.

So, in the example you give of a TCP packet with ECE set, that is a TCP PDU. By OSI definition, a TCP PDU does not include the IP header that encapsulates it. The IP header is only relevant when considering it as an IP PDU. And then the TCP PDU within it is just payload (the SDU that was passed to IP) and not part of the protocol of the IP PDU.



The narrowing concept that needs to be added is that if the PDU carries
a congestion indication, then that congestion indication participates in
such a feedback loop,
Yes, valid point. Thank you.
   ECN-PDU:  A PDU that is part of a feedback loop within which all the
      nodes that need to propagate the explicit congestion notification
      signal in the PDU back to the Load Regulator are ECN-capable of doing so.


and even that is subtle when there are multiple
possible congestion indication locations.  An example of the subtlety is
that the same PDU may be an ECN-PDU in feed-up-and-forward mode because
the layer 3 and 4 protocols support ECN but may be a Not-ECN-PDU for
feed-forward-and-up mode because the L2 decapsulator ignores and discards
L2 congestion indications.
I think the bold words in the phrase "nodes that need to propagate" deals with that subtlety.

In your example, if the subnet is propagating the PDU's ECN signal in feed-up-and-forward mode and the L2 decapsulator doesn't propagate ECN, it's not relevant because it also doesn't need to propagate ECN. Whereas, if the subnet propagates ECN in feed-forward-and-up mode, the decap does need to.

I've also extended the above correction into the next definition:

   Not-ECN-PDU:  A PDU that is part of a feedback-loop within which some at least one

      node necessary to propagate the explicit congestion notification signal in the PDU

      back to the load regulator are is not ECN-capable of doing so.



[G] 2. Terminology

   Congestion Baseline:  The location of the function on the path that
      initialised the values of all congestion notification fields in a
      sequence of packets, before any are set to the congestion
      experienced (CE) codepoint if they experience congestion further
      downstream.  Typically the original data source at layer-4.


That's counter-intuitive - a baseline is a level, not a location. I've
tagged this as a minor issue as opposed to editorial because it causes
severe confusion in the only place that this term is used, namely item 3
in Section 4.3.  That item 3 is about a Monitoring Baseline which is
a level not a location.

The Congestion Baseline term should be removed, and item 3 in Section
4.3 revised accordingly.  The term "Congestion Baseline" is used twice
there, but only the latter of those two uses needs to be retained and
expanded after deletion of this definition.
You're right. I've done as you suggest.

I've also nearly completely re-written the second half of the section, because I had temporarily forgotten the rationale, and even I couldn't understand what the rationale was after reading my own words.



[H] 3. Modes of Operation

      Feed-Up-and-Forward:  A lower layer switch feeds-up congestion
         notification directly into the ECN field in the higher layer
         (e.g.  IP) header, irrespective of whether the node is at the
         egress of a subnet.

Remove "the ECN field in" as that's too restrictive, even though that's
a common case, and move it into the example - "(e.g., ECN field in the
IP header)" where "header" moved inside the parentheses.
Done.




[I] 3.3.  Feed-Backward Mode

Please make it clear that the critique of the ATM ABR relative rate
control mechanism also applies to Ethernet QCN, as that's a more
current example.  This should be connected to the QCN discussion at
the end of Section 4.2.
I didn't want to imply any criticism of QCN, which always made it clear it was only applicable to a single subnet.

However, I can now see the need to have this written down, given certain companies are giving incentives to churn out Frankenpatents (any random combination of existing ideas, no matter whether useful or correct). So I've kept ATM as the example, but added at the end:

   QCN [IEEE802.1Qau] would suffer from similar problems if extended to

   multiple subnets.  However, from the start QCN was clearly stated as

   solely applicable to a single subnet (see Section 6).



[J] 4.3 Encapsulation Guidelines

Resolving minor issue [G] requires some edits to item 3 in this section:
- Remove "(the Congestion Baseline)" from the third paragraph.
- Rewrite start of fourth paragraph:

OLD
       Most information can be extracted if the Congestion Baseline is
       standardised at the node that is regulating the load (the Load
       Regulator--typically the data source).
NEW
       More information can be extracted if the protocol specification
       requires that congestion fields be initialized to indicate no
       congestion only by the node that is regulating the load (the
       Load Regulator--typically the data source).
END
See minor issue [G] above - already completely rewritten this text.




[K] 12.2 Informative References

Please check the references to 802.1Qah and 802.1Qau with IEEE.  The
correct references to use now may be the latest version of 802.1Q with
specific functionality and/or clauses identified.
Done.
802.1Qau -> 802.1Q Sections 30--33
802.1ah -> 802.1Q (as a whole - too scattered to call out particular sections).

Pat Thaler having retired, I no longer have a co-author who can advise on IEEE citation correctness.
But the above is good enough.

[I knew someone would point that out - I should have dealt with it but, even tho I purportedly have free access to the full rolled-up text of the current standard (IEEE802.1Q-2018), I've always had trouble viewing it. The IEEE pay-wall insists on displaying the free copy in my browser in a way that it can't be downloaded, but in Firefox the activity bar spins but nothing ever appears. After much gnashing of teeth, I discovered it works OK in Chrome.]




--- Editorial/Nits ---

Abstract, last sentence

   Following these guidelines should assure
   interworking between new lower layer congestion notification
   mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies.

between new -> among IP layer and
Yup.


1. Introduction, first paragraph

Suggest removing use of the word "buffer" - "lower layer" suffices in
all of the places where this word is used in this paragraph.
Not as simple as that. I've guessed that the idea of a buffer doing marking jars with you, so I've addressed the two occurrences of 'buffer' as follows:

1.   When a lower layer buffer drops a packet
This was intended to introduce the context as congestion loss, not transmission loss. So left unchanged.

2. In

   contrast, when a lower layer marks a packet with ECN, the marking

   needs to be explicitly propagated up the layers.  The same is true if

   a buffer marks the outer header of a packet that encapsulates inner

   tunnelled headers.
The second sentence is about tunnels, not lower layers.
So, I've introduced AQM into both sentences:

   In

   contrast, when active queue management (AQM) at a lower layer marks a

   packet with ECN, the marking needs to be explicitly propagated up the

   layers.  The same is true if AQM marks the outer header of a packet

   that encapsulates inner tunnelled headers.



1. Introduction, second paragraph

   The purpose of this document is to guide the addition of congestion
   notification to any subnet technology or tunnelling protocol, so that
   lower layer equipment can signal congestion explicitly and it will
   propagate consistently into encapsulated (higher layer) headers,
   otherwise the signals will not reach their ultimate destination.

Suggest: "equipment" -> "functionality"
Sorry, the word 'functionality' gets to me like finger-nails on a blackboard.
    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/is-that-even-a-word/

I've used s/equipment/AQM algorithms/




Page 5, first full paragraph:

   If a particular protocol design chooses to contradict a
   'SHOULD (NOT)' given in the advice below, it MUST include a sound
   justification.

chooses to contradict -> chooses not to follow
Yup


1.1. Scope, first paragraph

   This document only concerns wire protocol processing of explicit
   notification of congestion.

Remove "wire"
I think that loses the intended sense in too much ambiguity.
'Protocol processing' could include the AQM algorithms, which this sentence is trying to exclude.



Section 3.1, second paragraph

   In these cases, ECN may best be supported by standardising explicit
   notification of congestion into the lower layer protocol that carries
   the data forwards.  It will then also be necessary to define how the
   egress of the lower layer subnet propagates this explicit signal into
   the forwarded upper layer (IP) header.  It can then continue forwards
   until it finally reaches the destination transport (at L4).  Then
   typically the destination will feed this congestion notification back
   to the source transport using an end-to-end protocol (e.g.  TCP).
   This is the arrangement that has already been used to add ECN to IP-
   in-IP tunnels [RFC6040], IP-in-MPLS and MPLS-in-MPLS [RFC5129].

The referents of "It" at the start of the second and third sentences are
unclear and different.  Suggested rephrasings:

It will then also be necessary to define ->
     This necessitates also specifying

It can then continue -> This signal continues
Good.


Section 3.1, first paragraph after Figure 1

Cite one or more of the 3GPP references for GTP tunnels, as this is the
first occurrence of that concept in this draft.
Yup


Section 3.1, second paragraph after Figure 1

Cite a Frame Relay reference for the FECN bit..  Moving the [Buck00]
citation up to immediately follow "Frame Relay" in the first line
suffices.
Good.


Section 3.2 first paragraph

   These are Ethernet switches that bury into the Ethernet payload ...

bury -> burrow
[Spelling checker is missing "read user's mind" feature :-)]
I've used dig.

Hard to read user's mind. Easier to tell user what to think ;)



Section 3.4

The second paragraph could be improved by citing references for fat-tree
and Clos network topologies.
Done.



Section 4.1, second paragraph

   Therefore section 4 of
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim] requires network operators to
   configure the ingress of a non-ECN tunnel so that it zeros the ECN
   field in the outer IP header.

non-ECN tunnel -> tunnel that does not support ECN
OK


Section 4.1, third paragraph

   Even
   if the shim(s) encapsulate a L2 header, it is often possible to find
   an inner IP header within the L2 header

Latter instance of "L2 header" should be "L2 PDU"
Good.


Section 4.1, last paragraph

   Instead a companion specification
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim] has been prepared that has
   sufficient standards track status to update standards track
   protocols.


sufficient -> the appropriate
Done.


Authors Addresses

Please check these - Pat Thaler's contact info probably needs to be updated.
In progress.



Bob


Thanks, --David
----------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Distinguished Engineer
Dell EMC, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (774) 350-9323 New    Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
David.Black@dell.com<mailto:David.Black@dell.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------




--

________________________________________________________________

Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/