Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-07
review-ietf-manet-credit-window-07-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2016-12-12-00

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the
operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not
addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

  Document: draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-07
  Status: Ready with issues

The document is overall well written. My main concern is item b)
below, i.e., I am missing a discussion of the more global effect of
throttling traffic between the router and the modem. Is the router
supposed to do something special or is the whole idea that dropping
packets by the router is fundamentally better than dropping packets by
the modem (which may technically be a router as well if some form of
IP is used over the wireless link as well).

a) Please spell out DLEP in the title and the abstract.

b) The scenario seems to be as follows

                 Ethernet           Wireless
    --  router ------------ modem ------------ receiver


   The proposal aims to regulate traffic between the router and the
   modem so that the router does not overload the model, which may have
   problems forwarding traffic to the wireless receiver. Assuming that
   the router is not the source of the traffic, what happens at the
   other side of the router? Are you not just pushing the problem one
   step further, away from the model to the router?

c) Section 9.2 discusses that knowledge about credits may get
   inconsistent. Mismatches may also include situations where packets
   are lost or dropped (e.g. checksum failures) - should this be
   mentioned as well?

d) In the security considerations, I read 'The extension does not
   introduce any additional threats above those documented in [DLEP].'
   I wonder whether this is correct. Unless I have a secure transport
   for DLEP, can I not rather easily inject false window sizes to say
   prevent communciation or to let a router overflow a modem?

e) IANA considerations: Perhaps add clear instructions to the RFC
   editor that TBD[1-6] in the text need to be updated once IANA has
   made assignments.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>