Telechat Review of draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05
review-farrel-sfc-convent-05-tsvart-telechat-stiemerling-2018-02-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-farrel-sfc-convent |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
Deadline | 2018-02-07 | |
Requested | 2018-02-02 | |
Requested by | Mirja Kühlewind | |
Authors | Adrian Farrel , John Drake | |
I-D last updated | 2018-02-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Zitao Wang (diff) Tsvart Telechat review of -05 by Martin Stiemerling (diff) |
|
Comments |
I will put in a discuss for this document now as this spec allows a service function node to create new packets but does not address congestion control for these packets. However, it would be great to get an additional review from the ART for this already criticial doc! Thanks! |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Martin Stiemerling |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-farrel-sfc-convent by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2018-02-06 |
review-farrel-sfc-convent-05-tsvart-telechat-stiemerling-2018-02-06-00
did forget to include tsv-art. -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [sfc] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Datum: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 23:03:06 +0100 Von: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> An: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)' <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Kopie (CC): draft-farrel-sfc-convent@ietf.org, tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com, sfc-chairs@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org Hi Adrian, Jumping in here, as the TSVART reviewer: The document is good modulo what Mirja mentioned about congestion control: Am 02.02.18 um 19:25 schrieb Adrian Farrel: [...] > > Consider, if you will, BFD. There *is* rate limiting in BFD, but the rate may be > pretty fast. > > Anyway, if we construct some text that advises implementations: > - why to rate limit > - how to rate limit > - what rates may be appropriate > would you review it for us? and it is probably explicitly noteworthy that one incoming packet can trigger one (or even multiple ?) new packet which may increase the number of packets related to the incoming flow by a factor of 2. BFD (RFC 5880) might be a good start (but only...) when it comes to text about congestion control, i.e., to make the implementers and operators aware of the issue. However, as you've written the reasons about why, how and what is much better. I can do the review and help with the text. Cheers from Southern Europe ;) Martin