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 rev. 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 K├╝hlewind
Authors Adrian Farrel, John Drake
Draft 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 Eastlake (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
Review review-farrel-sfc-convent-05-tsvart-telechat-stiemerling-2018-02-06
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2018-02-06

Review
review-farrel-sfc-convent-05-tsvart-telechat-stiemerling-2018-02-06

did forget to include tsv-art.


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [sfc] Mirja K├╝hlewind'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