Skip to main content

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 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nicolas Williams
2009-06-05
05 Samuel 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