IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with COMMENT)

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Fri, 14 October 2016 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 E646812974B; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 sN9035uaqu47; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx144.netapp.com (mx144.netapp.com [216.240.21.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7932D1294F1; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,493,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="151192090"
Received: from hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.36]) by mx144-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2016 06:40:54 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:41:02 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::4ca2:22d:a2f1:881b%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:41:02 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSJVOvGhmsq1NHfkqz2DpBAJh2SKCoa+WA
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:41:01 +0000
Message-ID: <9F3029A3-C176-41BD-A716-0C2F2549BA11@netapp.com>
References: <147636444994.2924.6068969853311506877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <147636444994.2924.6068969853311506877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F982CA7680152F41B940D28E3FD17F41@hq.netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/xmV297QOIDNPsDRp0cTr2niDzRo>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "David L. Black" <david.black@emc.com>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:42:05 -0000

Hi,

On 2016-10-13, at 15:14, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> Before starting to read this document, a first reaction: let me stress
> that this type of document should really benefit from a "changes since
> RFC5405" section.

see my reply to Ben

> 
> - TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) on the first occurence

Fixed.

> - Section 3.1.1 might refer to active probing in IPPM, RFC 7679

I don't follow. 7679 doesn't contain the word "probing", and only talks about "active" in the security considerations, which doesn't seem relevant for 3.1.1

> - Section 3.1.5: Question: instead of implementing a congestion control
> scheme, is this valid to limit the UDP traffic to a certain value, such
> as a fraction of the outgoing link bandwidth? At least, that should be
> true for the section 3.6 "controlled environment"

Yes for a 3.6 controlled environment, no in general

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email