Mechanisms for Optimizing Link Aggregation Group (LAG) and Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Component Link Utilization in Networks
draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-15

[Ballot comment]
Completely non-blocking comment...

I agree with Adrian that there could be some confusion introduced with classification of flows as described in this document.  It is exacerbated by the categorization illustrated in Figure 1.  I will note that there is research that shows that a multitude of short-lived flows (regardless of their size) may cause more problems than the long-lived large flows focused on in this document.

[Ballot comment]
  short-lived large
  flows, are referred to as "small flows" in this document

Is that really helpful and not-at-all-confusing?

Well, at least you make the same statement three times in the document.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Mechanisms for Optimizing LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization in Networks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'Mechanisms for Optimizing LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization in
  Networks'
  as Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-05-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Demands on networking infrastructure are growing exponentially due to
  bandwidth hungry applications such as rich media applications and
  inter-data center communications. In this context, it is important to
  optimally use the bandwidth in wired networks that extensively use
  link aggregation groups and equal cost multi-paths as techniques for
  bandwidth scaling. This draft explores some of the mechanisms useful
  for achieving this.






The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

This draft was sent back to the WG because the WG LC comments were not addressed. A new version has been posted. Currently checking with the document shepherd if the latest version is complete for the AD review.

Shepherd Template: 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested:
Intended status: Informational.

It is Informational largely because it is not anything else -- it is not a Standard, is not a BCP, it is neither Experimental, nor Historic.
It does however provide information useful to the general Internet community / implementors.


(2) Document Announcement Write-Up:

Technical Summary:

This draft explores some mechanisms useful for achieving optimal use of bandwidth in wired networks that make extensive use of LAG/ECMP techniques for bandwidth scaling.

Working Group Summary:

There was no major drama in the WG related to this document.

The document received significant review / revision before being adopted.

Document Quality:
The document is well written and easy to follow.
A number of authors indicated that their employers are implementing, or have plans to implement this.
There was some discussion at adoption time regarding if implementation advice is appropriate work for the WG. Consensus was on the side of adoption.
There was also (primarily off-list) discussion that implementations should expose per-interface queue length. This information would make the technique in the draft more useful and could allow one to avoid placing traffic on interfaces that have long queues for some reason. While this would make the technique better, interface counters provide sufficient information to make the technique useful.

Personnel:
Warren Kumari is the Document Shepherd. Benoit Claise is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.
The document shepherd was not tracking the document as it progressed through the WG.
He has however gone back and read the archives, reviewed the draft, etc.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. There was significant discussion on document (primarily before adoption).


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective?
No.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of?
None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yup. There was a delay submitting this while awaiting positive ACKs, but all good now.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

There were IPR disclosures filed on earlier versions of the document (draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-07). The IPR issue was discussed during the adoption call. The offending text was removed in draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-08 and then the document was adopted.
An updated IPR disclosure was filed, stating: "All IPR related material have been removed from the latest version of the draft"

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is good consensus. The WG is not very active, so there were not a huge number of responses, but they were largely supportive.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
Nope!

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
There is no submission date in the document. It *appears* that this is because there are 6 authors, and so xml2rfc (or whatever was used) couldn't fit it in. I think that this can be dealt with by the RFC Editor.
There are (as always) minor grammatical / formatting nits (such as an extra period, etc). These can be (IMO) handled by the RFC Ed.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria.
None needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes. All are informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement?
Nope.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
Nope.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Nope.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
The IANA Considerations section says: "This memo includes no request to IANA."
The document shepherd reviewed this for consistency with the body of the document multiple times, carefully checking the spelling, grammar and even text kerning. He briefly thought that it was in a different font, but then realized that a: it's all ASCII and b: he needs a nap.
(It's fine).

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations.
None.

(19) Describe checks to validate formal language.
No formal language exists.