IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-08 - To conclude 19th November, 2014

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Fri, 19 December 2014 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787CE1A1F01 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:13:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.815
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_28=0.6, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 43sAQb1nSe2d for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:12:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9903B1A1B72 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:12:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B0BD2781D1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:12:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id gd6so414831lab.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:12:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.206.1 with SMTP id lk1mr4920765lac.92.1418976772854; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.200.113 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:12:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5474E869.6070406@meritmail.isi.edu>
References: <5d68d136cd87bde12faaf414b05167d3.squirrel@spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <A33D17830EBE774E8AEFAED600DD54E20180066A0A@ccr02.win.uni-due.de> <5474E869.6070406@meritmail.isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:12:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAO249yfKLEamhhyX4Z4HjhtscjxVNJnapPKWKJ2JUPCNx1FkMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: Bob Braden <braden@meritmail.isi.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133a44c7d9ca1050a8d46a2"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/hBt88-hkSNBaN_zTUANtIM-wBHU
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-08 - To conclude 19th November, 2014
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:13:01 -0000

Hello Bob,

Thank you so much for the feedback.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Bob Braden <braden@meritmail.isi.edu>
wrote:
>
> On 11/25/2014 11:53 AM, Becke, Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> - “Heartbeats SHOULD be sent to PF destination(s) once per RTO. This
>> means the sender MUST ignore HB.interval for PF destinations.”
>>
>>
> How about: "Heartbeats are sent to PF destination(s) once per RTO" ?
> There is no need to shout... ;-)
>

I think this is one of key points in PF as this affects the performance of
PF. The default value of HB.interval is 30 secs which is much longer than
RTO.
So, I personally prefer to use SHOULD here in order to make sure to ignore
HB.interval. I will update the text to clarify this point.

Regards,
--
Yoshi



>
>
>
>  This sounds strange to me. Why is SHOULD used here and what are the
>> alternatives, when I MUST ignore HB.interval for PF destinations. I guess a
>> rephrase of this two lines can help.
>>
>> - A link is missing in Section 5.1: [RFC6458] defines the constants
>> SCTP_ADDR_AVAILABLE,….
>>
>> Best
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: tsvwg [tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org]&quot; im Auftrag von &
>> quot;gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk [gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk]
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2014 15:01
>> An: tsvwg@ietf.org
>> Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
>> Betreff: [tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-08 - To
>> conclude 19th November, 2014
>>
>> TSVWG,
>>
>> This is the start of a WGLC on "Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP".
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-08
>>
>> This WGLC will last until Wednesday, 19th November, 2014, this includes
>> the period of the coming IETF meeting.
>>
>> A good note to the list is "I have read this version of the draft,
>> and I approve (or support) its progression to RFC". The chairs
>> request notes to the list showing support to get a sense of the WG.
>>
>> Of course, you can ask for alternate text (where you supply the
>> actual replacement text, or convey the meaning sufficiently to the
>> authors) for anywhere in the document that you find unclear or
>> troublesome.
>>
>> James/Gorry/David
>> TSVWG chairs
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Robert Braden
> Internet and Networked Systems Division
> USC Information Sciences Institute
> 310.448.9173
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email