Pseudowire Congestion Considerations
RFC 7893

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard Yes

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2016-01-06 for -01)
No email
send info
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.

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2016-01-06 for -01)
No email
send info
-- 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.

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2016-01-06 for -01)
No email
send info
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.]