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

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 01/12/2023 14:00, Bob Briscoe 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 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.
>> )
>
> [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*.
>
>
Thanks for the improvement,

Gorry

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