Ballot for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.
Here, here! This DISCUSS is just that. A DISCUSSion around how something could be clarified better. I expect it should be fairly easy to address it. Section 3, paragraph 2 > If this extension is supported, that support MUST be declare using > the Extensions Supported Data Item (see Section 13.6 of [RFC8175]). > DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension Data Items MUST NOT be emitted > by a DLEP participant unless such support was specified in the > initialization message received from its peer. The use of the > extension defined in this document SHOULD be configurable on both > modems and routers. The document clearly states that the extension needs to be configured on both modems and routers. Further down there are references to "network management mechanisms", which could imply NETCONF/RESTCONF, or they could also imply Syslog but that is not entirely clear reading the document. How exactly is this feature going to be configured or managed? For reference, please refer to Section 3 of RFC 5706.
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 1, paragraph 1 > The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. > This protocol provides the exchange of link related control > information between DLEP peers. DLEP peers consist of a modem and a > router. DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for > possible extensions. This document defines one such extension. s/This protocol/The protocol/ Document references draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-16, but -17 is the latest available revision. Document references draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-07, but -08 is the latest available revision. Section 1, paragraph 2 > ws may be shared or dedicated on a per flow basis. See [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-e > ^^^^^^^^ In this context, "per-flow" forms an adjective and is spelled with a hyphen. Section 2, paragraph 1 > is supported, that support MUST be declare using the Extensions Supported D > ^^^^^^^^^^ There may an error in the verb form "be declare".
Section 4: If changes are made to update the Security Consideration sections of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, I recommend this draft reference one or both of those drafts. Section 4: Wildcards are literally mentioned only in the Introduction and here. I certainly don't mind the recommendation in this section, but should this be a standalone paragraph? And should it appear in some/all of the other drafts in the group? Section 4, last sentence: Does this apply to the wildcard topic? Or something else, maybe the second sentence? I think this section could use some restructuring.
One small comment — “when both DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification are specified for a flow, the Ethertype information takes precedence” I guess you mean “Ethernet”, not “Ethertype”.
I support Deb's DISCUSS/COMMENTS on the Security Considerations for these documents
Thank you to Paul Kyzivat for the GENART review.
I could not escape the question that why is this a separete document.