Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-congcons-01
review-ietf-pals-congcons-01-genart-lc-bonica-2015-12-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-congcons
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-01-05
Requested 2015-12-03
Authors Yaakov Stein, David Black, Bob Briscoe
Draft last updated 2015-12-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Keyur Patel (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ron Bonica
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-congcons-01-genart-lc-bonica-2015-12-21
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 02)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2015-12-21

Review
review-ietf-pals-congcons-01-genart-lc-bonica-2015-12-21

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Document:                                      draft-ietf-pals-congcons-01
Reviewer:                                        Ron Bonica
Review Date:                                  2015-12-15
IETF LC End Date:                          2015-12-15
IETF Telechat Date:                      TBD

Summary:          This document is ready for publication

In summary, draft-ietf-congcons-01:

- applies only to pseudowires that run over something other than MPLS (e.g., GRE)
- concludes that no additional mechanisms are needed for elastic pseudowires
- concludes that an inelastic pseudowire MAY shutdown when it experiences higher-than-acceptable loss, latency or jitter
- observes that that for TDM PWs, as loss rate increases, higher-than-acceptable loss generally occurs before the fixed-rate TDM PW could cause serious problems for competing congestion-responsive traffic
- Therefore, no additional mechanisms are needed for inelastic pseudowires, either

I see nothing objectionable in the draft. However, its scope is extremely limited and it conclusions are not earthshattering. Nonetheless, the work is sound and deserves publication.
                    
Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues: 

Ron Bonica