Metering and Marking Behaviour of PCN-Nodes
draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Magnus Westerlund |
2009-09-03
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2009-09-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2009-09-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-09-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-09-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-09-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-09-02
|
05 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert |
2009-09-02
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2009-09-02
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2009-09-01
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-08-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
2009-08-03
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2009-08-03
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-05.txt |
2009-07-22
|
05 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert |
2009-07-17
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-07-16 |
2009-07-16
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2009-07-16
|
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-07-16
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] Section 1.1 and 2.1: Isn't the definition of non-PCN-competing traffic insufficient. Wouldn't a best effort class traffic compete with a EF class PCN … [Ballot discuss] Section 1.1 and 2.1: Isn't the definition of non-PCN-competing traffic insufficient. Wouldn't a best effort class traffic compete with a EF class PCN marked in the sense that EF class gets preferential treatment but still share a common underlying resource. Isn't the traffic class a fundamental concept to discuss here. It is not clear to me if the Competing-non-PCN-packet must be in the same traffic class or not. Section 2.3: What is the unit for the rate? And what is the behavior of the filling of the token bucket? This applies to the excessive traffic meter also. Section 2.4: Behavior when bucket is empty or negative is poorly defined. If the token becomes empty, the drainage of excessive tokens, are they simply discarded. Or are they stored to later consume tokens as the bucket is filled? To me it appears that the difference between the packet size independent is that in this case it allows the bucket to have dept for all tokens forwarded. And the fill rate first tries to pay of the debt before becoming positive. Any additional metering of packets simply increases the debt if it hasn't managed to become a positive value. While the first meter will discard the debt for each packet, simply mark that packet. Is that understanding correct? For example the following sentence is not clear if one shall act according to it prior to deducting the packets worth of token or not: " If the token bucket is negative (F_etm < 0), then the meter indicates to the marking function that the packet is to be excess-traffic-marked." I think this needs to be clarified. Section 2.5: As this draft is discussing the markings by PCN on an abstract level shouldn't it discuss the markings that combine ECN and PCN also as a set of markings that MAY need to be supported? |
2009-07-16
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-07-16
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-07-15
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] RED is used without expansion |
2009-07-15
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Section 1 It may seem petty, but I think it is important for the status of this document... This document standardises the … [Ballot discuss] Section 1 It may seem petty, but I think it is important for the status of this document... This document standardises the two metering and marking behaviours of s/standardises/describes/ An RFC Editor note will suffice. === I am supprised that all references are informative and none normative. At the very least, RFC 2119 is normative. I suspect a number of the others are also mandatory for correct interpretation of this document. |
2009-07-15
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-07-15
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] Very minor suggestion for improving readability - add a citation or two to docs providing background on PCN to the Introduction section. |
2009-07-15
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2009-07-14
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] I think the Security Considerations are inconsistent with respect to the threat from PCN-interior-nodes. The first paragraph ends of section 4 ends with: … [Ballot discuss] I think the Security Considerations are inconsistent with respect to the threat from PCN-interior-nodes. The first paragraph ends of section 4 ends with: More subtly, the rogue PCN- interior-node could perform these attacks selectively on particular flows, or it could PCN-mark the correct fraction overall but carefully choose which flows it marked. The next paragraph begins with: Note that PCN-interior-nodes are not flow-aware. This prevents some security attacks where an attacker targets specific flows in the data plane -- for instance, for DoS or eavesdropping. Perhaps I don't understand the meaning of "flow-aware", but it seems odd to state that a rogue PCN-interior-node might "carefully choose which flows it marked" and then state the node isn't flow-aware. |
2009-07-14
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] I think the Security Considerations are inconsistent with respect to the threat from PCN-interior-nodes. The first paragraph ends of section 4 ends with: … [Ballot discuss] I think the Security Considerations are inconsistent with respect to the threat from PCN-interior-nodes. The first paragraph ends of section 4 ends with: More subtly, the rogue PCN- interior-node could perform these attacks selectively on particular flows, or it could PCN-mark the correct fraction overall but carefully choose which flows it marked. The next paragraph begins with: Note that PCN-interior-nodes are not flow-aware. This prevents some security attacks where an attacker targets specific flows in the data plane -- for instance, for DoS or eavesdropping. Perhaps I don't understand the meaning of "flow-aware", but it seems odd to state that a rogue PCN-interior-node might "carefully choose which flows it marked" and then state the node isn't flow-aware. |
2009-07-14
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-07-14
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-07-14
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-07-13
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-07-11
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] This document has no Normative references? What about RFC 2119? |
2009-07-11
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-06-25
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2009-06-25
|
05 | Lars Eggert | Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-25
|
05 | Lars Eggert | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-06-25
|
05 | Lars Eggert | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-07-16 by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-25
|
05 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-25
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2009-06-25
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-04.txt |
2009-06-24
|
05 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-18
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-06-15
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2009-06-05
|
05 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nicolas Williams |
2009-06-05
|
05 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nicolas Williams |
2009-06-04
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-06-04
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-06-04
|
05 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
05 | Lars Eggert | Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-06-04
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-06-04
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-06-04
|
05 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-04
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Note]: 'Document Shepherd: Steven Blake (sblake@petri-meat.com)' added by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Steven Blake, PCN co-chair Has the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Steven Blake, PCN co-chair Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Yes & Yes (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? WG members - Yes Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. No In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Not applicable Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The primary working group contributors have all indicated approval for the document. There are no vocal dissenters. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The document passes ID-nits with one warning (reference to I-D.ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding points to draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-03 rather than the newer -04). There is no MIB, media type, nor URI related-text in the document. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? The document only has Informative references, which are appropriately marked. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Not applicable (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? An IANA Considerations section exists, but no requests are made to the IANA. If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Not applicable (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document specifies two packet metering and marking behaviours of PCN nodes. These metering and marking behaviours are implemented in PCN interior nodes to signal the onset of pre-congestion to PCN boundary nodes. Threshold-metering and -marking marks all PCN-packets if the PCN traffic rate is greater than a configured rate ("PCN-threshold-rate"). Excess-metering and -marking marks a proportion of PCN-packets, such that the amount marked equals the traffic rate in excess of a configured rate ("PCN-excess-rate"). The level of PCN marking allows PCN boundary nodes to determine the extent of pre-congestion on ingress-egress paths, which is used to make PCN traffic admission or termination decisions. This document is a product of the PCN working group. Working Group Summary The document was subject to thorough review by the PCN working group, and strong consensus for publication was reached. Document Quality The document was reviewed by the document shephard (Steven Blake). |
2009-06-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested |
2009-05-08
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-03.txt |
2009-03-05
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-02.txt |
2008-10-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-01.txt |
2008-10-02
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pcn-marking-behaviour-00.txt |