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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

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 tohttps://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.

)

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/