[tsvwg] Editorial review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-08

David Pullen <david.pullen@broadcom.com> Tue, 11 December 2018 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <david.pullen@broadcom.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5034B130FC7 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:29:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com
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 XiKgFPNMOgzj for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:29:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099B6130FD7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:29:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id p17so18020619qtl.5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:29:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=P8+iHDoJVDolMErT6cM9s1wKWKBMkiX8KMgBOqZVrcs=; b=Af8h1AqpiEPIcO2KAgVr3I3QM+Jf7Q/CspLkE5lhjGPtfgiou9bOitS5d9HYAUD4aB ziWdxMC2jqpHQgm9BxEKc6Es6fuXJ5PcUpz+uRdBBtBfL7AyvRX5B6QeTOUHWBGm+R/c M6t6Ivtpaa5CSLlsxenJSpw+J9IAa3Q62pJXY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=P8+iHDoJVDolMErT6cM9s1wKWKBMkiX8KMgBOqZVrcs=; b=M8olFFrL0Nul+S5Gjw1+JQwJ0RLjir2fsp2BagJdXYVlC1du8QycRAOlgEZM418qi9 8iuXnoZpvdb87M1YSC07U4OiRpJaDEB9Sq2RmNg0swR0QTTAFP21Sgicb4403gvk0tA9 yGNLufBbATFyant0sGwIBA3Y7BskPit9FSgcuVfEBfr+D8jgWSMYJ9ZmhyVCFRR75WCn n3thS1Mao0L8WZ6zb9lsS0YsdMlkTfn/XjQCTpBULlyiP/pLTDUKxDSVqAIcI6K1HpJM uaxmcJF2X4mt2FVj/G1rHVil1lQk3dfBVBhU38qnTD5RMvam9EeAZwquc9wKICkdM1Ue HKIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWb/l0yvtVIy8V7j9XGvdXaOHry38ge7BEKQ5MsrddAJqWMxww0A 59oUtI0MBB/kitMIpdSMR54ShwOwgnCoL4YKXB6O/g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XcHuC4JvDulSPDpMYcBkN30XPcvQMgbPWu52B4Pxc1XhWD/+u/6ffjgyBPjuZ247BdTVQFaOcjqWLvGXTi/cs=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4709:: with SMTP id f9mr17190729qtp.58.1544560188059; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:29:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Pullen <david.pullen@broadcom.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:29:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA+foQV1EAu7BLKefzT+c_XwarEf37ayTc_9cGyWMBs-_k642g@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf@bobbriscoe.net
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005821c3057cc4f12e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/hM8rlZnKKOu5FQDoB5C-RYy2HyU>
Subject: [tsvwg] Editorial review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-08
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:43:21 -0000

Hi Bob,

Apologies if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first time providing input on
an IETF draft.

I am reviewing the draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-08 document (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-08). These
are purely editorial comments/suggestions. I will send separate emails for
technical discussions.

In Section 2.1:

*   smoothing in the network, because it delays all signals for a worst- *I
recommend changing "it delays" to "smoothing delays". At first glance, "it"
seems to refer to L4S.

*   themselves, so they expect the network to generate ECN marks with a*

I recommend changing "so" to "thus"; minor improvement in readability.

In Section 2.2:

*   and it is scheduled with priority over Classic.  Priority is*
I recommend changing "over Classic" to "over Classic traffic".

In Section 2.3:

*   additional packet types into the L queue, that are deemed not to risk*
I recommend changing "that are" to "which are".

*   Note that the mechanism only reads these classifiers, it MUST NOT re-*
Should "classifiers" be "identifiers"?

In Section 2.4:

*   Both AQMs regulate their queue in units of time not bytes.  As*
I recommend changing "not bytes" to "rather than bytes".

*   AQMs, as long as the normative requirements (those expressed in
  capitals) in Section 2.5 are observed.*
Is it necessary to state "(those expressed in capitals)"? Isn't the meaning
of "normative requirements" defined previously?

In Section 2.5.1:

*   flow rates at any times when all flows are Classic or all L4S, and it*
I recommend changing "all L4S" to "all flows are L4S".

In Section 2.5.2:

*   DualQ Couple AQM is to enable deployment and coexistence of scalable*

I recommend changing "Couple" to "Coupled".

Thanks,
  - Dave

David Pullen
Distinguished Engineer  |  Wired Networking, Cable Modems
Broadcom

office: 678.475.3143  |  mobile: 678.477.4108  |  fax: 770.232.0211
4385 River Green Parkway  |  Duluth, GA 30096
david.pullen@broadcom.com   |   broadcom.com