[tsvwg] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 20 February 2019 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDA2130E27; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:16:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb@ietf.org, David Black <david.black@dell.com>, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, david.black@dell.com, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <155068297765.31474.15865784466149137006.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:16:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/hg2ckN1XH8yyhJRxtUsieIBNmWc>
Subject: [tsvwg] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:16:18 -0000

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: Discuss

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 to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that this should be trivial DISCUSS to address, but I thought it
important enough to warrant it. I'm OK with basically whatever you answer, I
just wanted to make sure this had been seen and considered.

"An LE PHB SHOULD NOT be used for a customer’s "normal Internet"
   traffic nor should packets be "downgraded" to the LE PHB instead of
   being dropped, particularly when the packets are unauthorized
   traffic.  "

Great, sounds good to me -- but in the USA at least, there is are many cell
phone plans which are "unlimited", but after some amount of traffic (e.g 22GB)
your connection gets throttled to a lower data rate. Is this traffic still 'a
customer's "normal Internet" traffic"? Is it appropriate (whatever that means)
to downgrade this traffic to the LE PHB? I understand not wanting to touch this
issue with  a 10 foot pole (and I don't know what the right answer is!), but
you *did* open this can of worms by talking about what classification user
traffic should have.

Note: I'm happy to clear my DISCUSS no matter what the answer is, I just want
to make sure it has been considered / discussed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Major:
"Some network providers keep link utilization below 50% to ensure that all
traffic is forwarded without loss after rerouting caused by a link failure
(cf.Section 6 of [RFC3439]).  LE marked traffic can utilize the normally unused
capacity and will be preempted automatically in case of link failure when 100%
of the link capacity is required for all other traffic. " Yup - very true. But
I think it needs to be mentioned that the provider will need to upgrade their
monitoring / management system so that they can see the traffic lass. If they
monitoring circuit utilization using e.g interface counters (and not by traffic
class), a link may have 1% "real" traffic and 90% LE traffic, and it will look
like it it 91% "full". I don't have any suggested text to address this (and
this is just a comment, so "well, duh, they should know that anyway!" is a fine
answer.)

Nits:
"A main problem is that multicast" -- I'm not sure you can say "A main" - main
implies singular.; I'd suggest "The main" or "A major".

"However,using the Lower Effort PHB for multicast requires to pay special" --
"requires paying"...