DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-02-07
|
08 | Carlos Pignataro | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2025-02-06
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2025-02-06
|
08 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2025-02-06
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Ronald in 't Velt for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to Carlos Bernardos, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2025-02-04/ (and I have read Donald's reply) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Section 1 Should the 'unidirectional' nature of this I-D be reflected in the title ? Based on `This document defines a DLEP extension which provides an Ethernet-based flow control mechanism for traffic sent from a router to a modem` Suggest introducing "PCP" acronym when "Priority Code Points" first appears. |
2025-02-06
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2025-02-05
|
08 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2025-02-05
|
08 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2025-02-05
|
08 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2025-02-04
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Behcet Sarikaya for the GENART review. |
2025-02-04
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2025-02-04
|
08 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Carlos Jesús Bernardos. Sent review to list. |
2025-02-03
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot comment] # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08 # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08.txt # … [Ballot comment] # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08 # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08.txt # Many thanks for to He Jia for the RTGDIR reviews # Most of the non-blocking observations are clarifications and readability suggestions # Detailed Review # =============== 72 The DLEP specification does not include any flow control capability. 73 There are various flow control techniques theoretically possible with 74 DLEP. This document defines a DLEP extension which provides an 75 Ethernet-based flow control mechanism for traffic sent from a router 76 to a modem. Flow control is provided using one or more logical 77 "Credit Windows", each of which will typically be supported by an 78 associated virtual or physical queue. A router will use traffic flow 79 classification information provided by the modem to identify which 80 traffic is associated with each credit window. Credit windows may be 81 shared or dedicated on a per flow basis. See 82 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] for a DiffServ-based 83 version of credit window flow control. As specified in Section 2.3.1 84 of [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification], when both DiffServ 85 and Ethernet traffic classification are specified for a flow, the 86 Ethertype information takes precedence. GV> When the word "capability" is used, then my routing brain gets triggered by IGP TLVs and BGP capability negotiation principles. I suspect that what the authors are trying to say is that DLEP does not specify any flow control procedures. GV> In addition I tried streamline the remaining part of the text also. What do you think of following rewrite: " The DLEP specification does not define any flow control mechanisms. While various flow control techniques could be theoretically implemented with DLEP, this document specifies a DLEP extension that introduces an Ethernet-based flow control mechanism for traffic transmitted from a router to a modem. This mechanism utilizes one or more logical "Credit Windows", each of which is typically associated with a virtual or physical queue. The router leverages traffic flow classification information provided by the modem to determine the appropriate credit window for a given traffic flow. Credit windows may be allocated on either a shared or a per-flow basis. For a DiffServ-based approach to credit window flow control, refer to [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]. As specified in Section 2.3.1 of [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification], when both DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification are applied to a flow, Ethertype-based classification takes precedence. " 88 This document uses the traffic classification and credit window 89 control mechanisms defined in 90 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and 91 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control] to provide credit window 92 based flow control based on DLEP destinations and Ethernet VLANs and 93 Priority Code Points. Ethernet Priority Code Point support is 94 defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] tag format and 95 includes a 3-bit "PCP" field. The tag format also includes a 12-bit 96 VLAN identifier (VID) field. The defined mechanism allows for credit 97 windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP 98 destinations, Virtual Area Netwokrs (VLANs), and Priority Code Points 99 (PCPs), or used exclusively for traffic sent to a particular 100 destination and/or VLAN and/or PCP. The extension also supports the 101 "wildcard" matching of any PCP or VID. GV> What about: " This document leverages the traffic classification and credit window control mechanisms defined in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification] and [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control] to enable credit window-based flow control based on DLEP destinations, Ethernet VLANs, and Priority Code Points (PCPs). Ethernet PCP support is specified as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] tag format, which includes a 3-bit "PCP" field. The tag format also incorporates a 12-bit "VLAN Identifier (VID)" field. The defined mechanism allows credit windows to be shared across traffic destined for multiple DLEP destinations, Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs), and PCPs, or to be dedicated exclusively to traffic associated with a specific destination, VLAN, and/or PCP. Additionally, this extension supports "wildcard" matching for any PCP or VID. " 166 Modems MAY support the configuration of the number of credit windows 167 (queues) to advertise to a router. 168 169 Routers may have limits on the number of queues that they can support 170 and limits on supported credit window combinations. Per destination 171 queues might not be supported at all. When modem-provided credit 172 window information exceeds the capabilities of a router, the router 173 SHOULD use a subset of the provided credit windows. Alternatively, a 174 router MAY reset the session and indicate that the extension is not 175 supported. In either case, the mismatch of capabilities SHOULD be 176 reported to the user via normal network management mechanisms such as 177 user interface messages or error logging. 178 179 In all cases, if credit windows are in use, traffic for which credits 180 are not available MUST NOT be sent to the modem by the router. GV> I find this not so easy to parse. What about the following textblob instead: " Modems MAY support configuration of the number of credit windows (queues) that they advertise to a router. Routers may impose limitations on the number of queues they can support and on the allowable credit window configurations. In some cases, per-destination queues may not be supported. If the credit window information provided by the modem exceeds the router’s capabilities, the router SHOULD utilize a subset of the advertised credit windows. Alternatively, the router MAY reset the session and indicate that the extension is not supported. In either case, any mismatch in capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user through standard network management mechanisms, such as user interface notifications or error logging. Regardless of implementation, if credit windows are in use, the router MUST NOT send traffic to the modem unless sufficient credits are available. " Kind Regards, Gunter Van de Velde Routing Area Director |
2025-02-03
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2025-02-03
|
08 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] I support Deb's DISCUSS/Comments on security |
2025-02-03
|
08 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2025-02-03
|
08 | Susan Hares | Assignment of request for Telechat review by OPSDIR to Susan Hares was rejected |
2025-02-02
|
08 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2025-02-02
|
08 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley |
2025-02-01
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of the text in this cluster of documents is repeated across the documents. The nits therefore follow some of … [Ballot comment] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of the text in this cluster of documents is repeated across the documents. The nits therefore follow some of that duplicated text. 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. Section 1, paragraph 2 > ws may be shared or dedicated on a per flow basis. See [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-d > ^^^^^^^^ In this context, "per-flow" forms an adjective and is spelled with a hyphen. |
2025-02-01
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot comment text updated for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2025-02-01
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of the text in this cluster of documents is repeated across the documents. The nits therefore follow some of … [Ballot comment] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of the text in this cluster of documents is repeated across the documents. The nits therefore follow some of that duplicated text. 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. Section 1, paragraph 2 > ws may be shared or dedicated on a per flow basis. See [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-d > ^^^^^^^^ In this context, "per-flow" forms an adjective and is spelled with a hyphen. |
2025-02-01
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot comment text updated for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2025-02-01
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] Some of the text in this cluster of documents is repeated across the documents. The nits therefore follow some of that duplicated text. … [Ballot comment] Some of the text in this cluster of documents is repeated across the documents. The nits therefore follow some of that duplicated text. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Section 1, paragraph 2 > ws may be shared or dedicated on a per flow basis. See [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-d > ^^^^^^^^ In this context, "per-flow" forms an adjective and is spelled with a hyphen. |
2025-02-01
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2025-01-31
|
08 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2025-01-31
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2025-01-30
|
08 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Jesús Bernardos |
2025-01-30
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2025-01-19
|
08 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2025-01-08
|
08 | Jenny Bui | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2025-02-06 |
2025-01-08
|
08 | Jim Guichard | Ballot has been issued |
2025-01-08
|
08 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2025-01-08
|
08 | Jim Guichard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2025-01-08
|
08 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2025-01-08
|
08 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-12-15
|
08 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-08.txt |
2024-12-15
|
08 | Donald Eastlake | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Donald Eastlake) |
2024-12-15
|
08 | Donald Eastlake | Uploaded new revision |
2024-11-22
|
07 | Don Fedyk | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-07.txt |
2024-11-22
|
07 | Don Fedyk | New version approved |
2024-11-22
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Wiggins , Lou Berger , manet-chairs@ietf.org |
2024-11-22
|
07 | Don Fedyk | Uploaded new revision |
2024-08-29
|
06 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: He Jia. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-08-12
|
06 | Susan Hares | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list. |
2024-08-08
|
06 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: He Jia. |
2024-07-22
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-07-22
|
06 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-06.txt |
2024-07-22
|
06 | Lou Berger | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2024-07-22
|
06 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2024-07-13
|
05 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2024-07-10
|
05 | Valery Smyslov | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Valery Smyslov. Sent review to list. |
2024-07-09
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-07-09
|
05 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Extension Type Value Registry in the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters/ a single new extension type will be registered from the Specification Required range as follows: Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request. We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-07-09
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-07-04
|
05 | Behcet Sarikaya | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya. Sent review to list. |
2024-07-04
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Valery Smyslov |
2024-07-03
|
05 | Shivan Sahib | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Shivan Sahib was rejected |
2024-07-02
|
05 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2024-06-29
|
05 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2024-06-28
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shivan Sahib |
2024-06-27
|
05 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2024-06-26
|
05 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2024-06-26
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Behcet Sarikaya |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jenny Bui | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jenny Bui | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-07-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, manet-chairs@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, ronald.intvelt@tno.nl … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-07-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, manet-chairs@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, ronald.intvelt@tno.nl Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-07-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) that enables a Ethernet IEEE 802.1Q aware credit- window scheme for destination-specific and shared flow control. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Last call was requested |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Requested Last Call review by SECDIR |
2024-06-25
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard |
2024-06-24
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Stan Ratliff, Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2024-06-24
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-06-24
|
05 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-05.txt |
2024-06-24
|
05 | Lou Berger | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2024-06-24
|
05 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-22
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard, Stan Ratliff, Lou Berger (IESG state changed) |
2024-05-22
|
04 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2024-05-22
|
04 | Jim Guichard | AD review completed === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/WdMvg80Q6Q2yj_Etoix3kTF8cS8/ === |
2024-05-10
|
04 | Ronald in 't Velt | Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, … Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in separate documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place, separate from the combined review for the three companion documents (see answer to question 1), because of later availability of this document. However, the reviewer refereed to his earlier review and the concerns from that review remaining to be addressed. To a large extent, these applied to this document as well. These have now been resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/XPxug7QCNXWjyY4Jg4wPddoOWcM/ These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and finer-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statement at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ibXDUDE-MQWHCKkhhmYthz_EnZI/ A similar statement from the other author, David Wiggins, is not available, as, sadly, he passed away in 2023. It appears that no IPR is being claimed. (David Wiggins is a co-author of all three companion documents of this I-D (as enumerated in the answer to question 1) and did state that he was unaware of IPR on any of these). 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? The document normatively references IEEE 802.1Q-2014 (** which may need to be updated to IEEE 802.1Q-2022 ? **). However, only the format of the 802.1Q tag, which is well-known, is of relevance here. All other normative references are to RFCs (or RFCs-to-be, in two cases). 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? This document has normative references to two of its companion documents (see answer to question 1), draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, which are assumed to go through post-WG review and processing steps alongside it. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Extensions Registry named "Extension Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document does not create new IANA registries. The requested action in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) has been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. This document does not create new IANA registries. |
2024-05-10
|
04 | Ronald in 't Velt | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-05-10
|
04 | Ronald in 't Velt | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-05-10
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2024-05-10
|
04 | Ronald in 't Velt | Responsible AD changed to Jim Guichard |
2024-05-10
|
04 | Ronald in 't Velt | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-05-10
|
04 | Ronald in 't Velt | Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, … Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in separate documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place, separate from the combined review for the three companion documents (see answer to question 1), because of later availability of this document. However, the reviewer refereed to his earlier review and the concerns from that review remaining to be addressed. To a large extent, these applied to this document as well. These have now been resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/XPxug7QCNXWjyY4Jg4wPddoOWcM/ These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and finer-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statement at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ibXDUDE-MQWHCKkhhmYthz_EnZI/ A similar statement from the other author, David Wiggins, is not available, as, sadly, he passed away in 2023. It appears that no IPR is being claimed. (David Wiggins is a co-author of all three companion documents of this I-D (as enumerated in the answer to question 1) and did state that he was unaware of IPR on any of these). 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? The document normatively references IEEE 802.1Q-2014 (** which may need to be updated to IEEE 802.1Q-2022 ? **). However, only the format of the 802.1Q tag, which is well-known, is of relevance here. All other normative references are to RFCs (or RFCs-to-be, in two cases). 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? This document has normative references to two of its companion documents (see answer to question 1), draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, which are assumed to go through post-WG review and processing steps alongside it. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Extensions Registry named "Extension Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document does not create new IANA registries. The requested action in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) has been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. This document does not create new IANA registries. |
2024-03-18
|
04 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-04.txt |
2024-03-18
|
04 | Tess Chapeta | Posted submission manually |
2024-03-16
|
03 | Ronald in 't Velt | WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in separate documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place, separate from the combined review for the three companion documents (see answer to question 1), because of later availability of this document. However, the reviewer refereed to his earlier review and the concerns from that review remaining to be addressed. To a large extent, these apply to this document as well. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Knm_a-HXt_5i9xlRAnfp7jhLkds/ (**as WG participant**) These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and finer-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statement at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ibXDUDE-MQWHCKkhhmYthz_EnZI/ A similar statement from the other author, David Wiggins, is not available, as, sadly, he passed away in 2023. It appears that no IPR is being claimed. (David Wiggins is a co-author of all three companion documents of this I-D (as enumerated in the answer to question 1) and did state that he was unaware of IPR on any of these). 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? The document normatively references IEEE 802.1Q-2014 (** needs to be updated to IEEE 802.1Q-2022 ? **). However, only the format of the 802.1Q tag, which is well-known, is of relevance here. All other normative references are to RFCs (or RFCs-to-be, in two cases). 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? This document has normative references to two of its companion documents (see answer to question 1), draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, which are assumed to go through post-WG review and processing steps alongside it. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Extensions Registry named "Extension Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document does not create new IANA registries. The requested action in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) has been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. This document does not create new IANA registries. WORK IN PROGRESS |
2024-03-04
|
03 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-03.txt |
2024-03-04
|
03 | Tess Chapeta | Posted submission manually |
2024-01-11
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-12-20
|
02 | Ronald in 't Velt | WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in separate documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place, separate from the combined review for the three companion documents (see answer to question 1), because of later availability of this document. However, the reviewer refereed to his earlier review and the concerns from that review remaining to be addressed. To a large extent, these apply to this document as well. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Knm_a-HXt_5i9xlRAnfp7jhLkds/ (**as WG participant**) These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and finer-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statments at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ibXDUDE-MQWHCKkhhmYthz_EnZI/ (IPR statement by David Wiggins is still pending). It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? The document normatively references IEEE 802.1Q-2014 (** needs to be updated to IEEE 802.1Q-2022 ? **). However, only the format of the 802.1Q tag, which is well-known, is of relevance here. All other normative references are to RFCs (or RFCs-to-be, in two cases). 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? This document has normative references to two of its companion documents (see answer to question 1), draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, which are assumed to go through post-WG review and processing steps alongside it. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Extensions Registry named "Extension Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document does not create new IANA registries. The requested action in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) has been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. This document does not create new IANA registries. WORK IN PROGRESS |
2023-12-20
|
02 | Ronald in 't Velt | WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in separate documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place. Main concern was the split in three different documents. (See answer to question 2). Some lesser issue are being resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Knm_a-HXt_5i9xlRAnfp7jhLkds/ (**as WG participant**) These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and finer-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statments at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ibXDUDE-MQWHCKkhhmYthz_EnZI/ (IPR statement by David Wiggins is still pending). It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? The document normatively references IEEE 802.1Q-2014 (** needs to be updated to IEEE 802.1Q-2022 ? **). However, only the format of the 802.1Q tag, which is well-known, is of relevance here. All other normative references are to RFCs (or RFCs-to-be, in two cases). 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? This document has normative references to two of its companion documents (see answer to question 1), draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification, which are assumed to go through post-WG review and processing steps alongside it. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Extensions Registry named "Extension Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document does not create new IANA registries. The requested action in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) has been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. This document does not create new IANA registries. WORK IN PROGRESS |
2023-12-20
|
02 | Ronald in 't Velt | Notification list changed to ronald.intvelt@tno.nl because the document shepherd was set |
2023-12-20
|
02 | Ronald in 't Velt | Document shepherd changed to Ronald in 't Velt |
2023-12-19
|
02 | David Black | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black. Sent review to list. |
2023-12-18
|
02 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to David Black |
2023-12-18
|
02 | Ronald in 't Velt | Requested Early review by TSVART |
2023-11-05
|
02 | Ronald in 't Velt | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-11-05
|
02 | Ronald in 't Velt | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2023-07-10
|
02 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02.txt |
2023-07-10
|
02 | Lou Berger | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2023-07-10
|
02 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-10
|
01 | Ronald in 't Velt | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2022-08-28
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-02-24
|
01 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-01.txt |
2022-02-24
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2022-02-24
|
01 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-30
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-11-15
|
00 | Don Fedyk | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2021-07-29
|
00 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-00.txt |
2021-07-29
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-07-29
|
00 | Lou Berger | Set submitter to "Lou Berger ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: manet-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-07-29
|
00 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |