Pseudowire Congestion Considerations
draft-ietf-pals-congcons-02
Yes
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Stiemerling)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Stephen Farrell)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-01-06 for -01)
Unknown
So, very nice. I have one request for you to consider. In this text: The figures presented above demonstrate that TDM service quality degradation generally occurs before the TDM PW would consume more bandwidth that a comparable TCP flow. Thus while TDM PWs are unable to respond to congestion in a TCP-like manner, TDM PWs that are able to deliver acceptable TDM service do not contribute to congestion significantly more than a TCP flow. Combined with our earlier conclusion that Ethernet PWs respond in TCP-like fashion, leads to our final conclusion that no PW-specific congestion-avoidance mechanisms are required. I can't tell whether or not you're saying that a TPM PW only needs a circuit breaker as an absolute last resort, or it doesn't need a circuit breaker, or something else. If you could finish the last sentence with a word about that, I think it would be helpful.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-06 for -01)
Unknown
I have no concerns about the contents of this document, but it bothers me that it doesn’t include all the information. Yes, I realize the figures can’t be properly included in ASCII art. I suggest that the authors include a note (at the top of the document or even in the Abstract) that points the reader to the “complete” version. [Take a look at RFC1305 for an example.]
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-01-06 for -01)
Unknown
-- Abstract -- The abstract seems to have too much detail about what the document concludes. The abstract should just be a general statement of what the document is about -- just enough that someone can determine whether this document is relevant. I think I would do something like this: NEW Pseudowires (PWs) have become a common mechanism for tunneling traffic, and may be found in unmanaged scenarios competing for network resources both with other PWs and with non-PW traffic, such as TCP/IP flows. It is thus worthwhile specifying under what conditions such competition is acceptable, where the PW traffic does not significantly harm other traffic or contribute more than it should to congestion. This document makes that analysis and provides recommendations. END The rest of the detail needs to be in the document -- perhaps in the Introduction -- but not in the abstract.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown