• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: ledbat

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-12-19 00:24 (System)

RFC published

2012-10-29 07:30 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-10-25 11:07 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

2012-10-25 08:09 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2012-10-25 08:09 Cindy Morgan

IESG has approved the document

2012-10-25 08:09 Cindy Morgan

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-10-25 08:09 Cindy Morgan

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-10-25 07:27 Wesley Eddy

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2012-10-22 11:53 Stewart Bryant

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my concerns.

2012-10-22 11:53 Stewart Bryant

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-10-19 06:50 Ralph Droms

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my Discuss points. I've changed my position to No Objection.

2012-10-19 06:50 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-09-26 06:17 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS/COMMENT

2012-09-26 06:17 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-09-25 11:54 Janardhan Iyengar

New revision available

2012-05-24 11:47 Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation

2012-05-24 06:42 Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley

2012-05-24 05:53 Benoit Claise

[Ballot discuss]
1. Since "LEDBAT is an experimental delay-based congestion control mechanism", I was wondering when the LEDBAT is not appropriate.
And I was very surprised not to see a reference to RFC 6297. Specifically http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6297#section-2.2, "Potential Issues with Delay-Based Congestion Control for LBE Transport".
A sentence such as the following, from RFC 6297, is particularly important to mention: "this makes such protocols highly sensitive to eventual changes in the end-to-end route during the lifetime of the flow [Mo99]."

2. Then I was wondering: what about ECMPs with different delays?
Is LEDBAT appropriate or not? I could not deduced from the document if you keep the list of delay per host, or per transport.
If per transport, LEDBAT is appropriate
If per host IP address, LEDBAT might have some issues in case of significant different delays in the ECMPs
A new section about LEDBAT applicability would be welcome

3. how can I monitor that LEDBAT doesn't do any harm or does actually the job?
I understand that LEDBAT is experimental, but also deployed, but how do we monitor the impact? What if LEDBAT misbehaves: how do we notice?
And I don't see in the charter that you're going to address the manageability and operational aspect in a different document.

2012-05-24 05:53 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
OLD:
The
International Telecommunication Union's (ITU's) Recommendation G.114
defines a delay of 150 ms to be acceptable for most user voice
applications.

NEW:
The
International Telecommunication Union's (ITU's) Recommendation G.114
defines a one way delay of 150 ms to be acceptable for most user voice
applications.

2012-05-24 05:53 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benoit Claise

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.