[Tsvwg] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-mib-extension-10 starts NOW

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have reviewed the draft and have a few comments. I have not followed 
the previous discussion on this document.

1. Page 16: tcpEStatsConnTableLatency:

Why is the maximum latency value restricted to 30 seconds?

2. Page 19: tcpEStatsListenerHCSynRcvd:

I wonder over these HC values. In most cases they seem to apply to not 
that extreme values, like the tcpEStatsPerfHCDataOctetsOut that clearly 
any decently connected machine may wrap the non HC version within 1 
hours time. Based on this I have two questions:

A. Why are the non HC version existing, I don't see doubling the number 
of meters simply to have 32bit versions of them provides any real benefit.

B. I get the feeling that the authors have considered a special model of 
how the reader of the MIB should work. A certain access pattern and 
reading the values quite often.

3. It might be covered somewhere in the SMI framework. However it is not 
clear how one should handle the wrapping of the meters. It seem to rely 
on that you have read it sufficiently often that the wrapping is not an 
issue.

4. Page 32:

Are there any clear definition of what is considered to be Sender 
Limited, Receiver Limited, and Congestion Limited?

5. Page 43:
tcpEStatsPathECNSent  OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX          ZeroBasedCounter32
        MAX-ACCESS      read-only
        STATUS          current
        DESCRIPTION
           "Number of times CE bits have set ECN."
        REFERENCE
           "RFC3168, The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification
            (ECN) to IP"

I don't understand the description for this meter. Can you please 
explain what is intended.


Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone [phone]
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   [phone]
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]