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

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the comments.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Becke, Martin <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I read the draft and I still think the algorithm described is functional
> and useful. I like the idea to introduce a potentially failed state (PF) to
> optimize the send process.
>
> I have only some questions/comments (No editorial comments, perhaps a
> native speaker can check the text, too):
>
> - Perhaps the authors can give me a hint why it should be RECOMMENDED  to
> set the PFMR value to 0 when Quick Failover is used.  I would expect a
> value > 0 when it is used and 0 when it is not(!) used.
>

Setting PFMR to 0 means one single timeout triggers Quick Failover.
According to some studies, this will be the most efficient setting as you
can quickly utilize another available path. Setting PFMR to PFMR > 0 &&
PFMR < PMR means you'll need some consecutive timeouts before Quick
Failover is triggered.
As described, when PFMR >= PMR, Quick Failover will be turned off.


> - I think the term “multiple destinations” irritates.  Perhaps you can use
> “destination addresses” or “addresses” instead”.  FMPOV the use of the term
> “destination” in this draft is inaccurate.  In general the terms path,
> destination, destination address are very mixed for my feeling. Perhaps
> this can be rechecked.
>

OK. We'll check this.

>
> - “Heartbeats SHOULD be sent to PF destination(s) once per RTO. This means
> the sender MUST ignore HB.interval for PF destinations.”
>
> 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.
>

I see your point. We'll think about this. I think we should change SHOULD
to MUST for now.

>
> - A link is missing in Section 5.1: [RFC6458] defines the constants
> SCTP_ADDR_AVAILABLE,….
>

Thanks for pointing out! We'll fix this.

Regards,
--
Yoshi

________________________________________
> Von: tsvwg [[e-mail]]&quot; im Auftrag von &
> quot;[e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2014 15:01
> An: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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
>
>
>