[Tsvwg] Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls

[Bruce Davie <[e-mail]>]

Lars,
  Thanks for the comments. Before I respond to them, I wanted to  
mention one change that Bob and I want to make in the next revision  
in addition to the changes you request. It is just a small point of  
clarification, but we don't want to surprise anyone. The proposed new  
text, which would appear at the end of Section 6, is included below:

We note that in a network where L-LSPs are used, ECN marking SHOULD  
NOT cause packets from the same microflow but with different ECN  
markings to be sent on different LSPs. As discussed in [RFC3270],  
packets of a single microflow should always travel on the same LSP to  
avoid possible misordering. Thus, ECN marking of packets on L-LSPs  
SHOULD only affect the EXP value of the packets.

-----
Now to your comments

On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls, and think it is ready to move  
> to IETF last call, modulo a resolution to some small issues:
>
> (1) Section 8.3 doesn't really discuss an "example use", which is  
> what the title of Section 8 is. Suggest to cut it or move the  
> content elsewhere.

In my mind, section 8.3 is an example of how you can use ECN in MPLS  
networks. I think the problem here is that we didn't say enough to  
make that apparent. At the same time, I don't really see any harm in  
dropping the section.

>
> (2) I'd make sense to swap Sections 8 and 9, i.e., discuss  
> deployment considerations before example uses.

No problem.

>
> (3) My recollection was that there was an agreement to move the  
> discussion of how one would use this to support PCN to an appendix.  
> Some of this has happened, but Section 8.4 still exist in the main  
> body of the document, and is longer than all the other example  
> uses. I suggest to replace the content of Section 8.4 with a  
> pointer to the appendix, and move the PCN details there.

We certainly moved all the protocol details around PCN support to an  
appendix as previously agreed. I have no problem moving most of this  
section to an appendix too.

>
> (4) Can the reference to [Briscoe] be made more concrete, i.e., can  
> it point at something that people can actually get at?
>

Of course. The internet draft to which we were referring did not  
exist at the time of the last draft, but now it does: draft-briscoe- 
tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-00.txt will be the new reference. However, RFC  
editor style is to remove the filename of the draft from the  
references again, so I think this will look pretty much the same upon  
publication.

Bruce
> Lars