Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07
review-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07-tsvart-lc-kuehlewind-2024-02-29-01
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
Deadline | 2024-02-29 | |
Requested | 2024-02-15 | |
Authors | Bruno Decraene , Les Ginsberg , Tony Li , Guillaume Solignac , Marek Karasek , Gunter Van de Velde , Tony Przygienda | |
I-D last updated | 2024-02-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Tsvart Last Call review of -07
by Mirja Kühlewind
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Barry Leiba (diff) Genart Last Call review of -07 by Ines Robles (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Loa Andersson (diff) Tsvart Early review of -06 by Mirja Kühlewind (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Mirja Kühlewind |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/KY78wEYzfDHjFx4mypnUul3-AEw | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | On the right track | |
Completed | 2024-02-29 |
review-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07-tsvart-lc-kuehlewind-2024-02-29-01
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. I did an early TSV review a few weeks ago and the current version addresses a lot of the comments and is an improvement. On the high level I still think the document can be further improves by recommending and discussion appropriate default values or values ranges to ensure safe operation as implementors often reply on default value and if no recommendation is given or discussed this can lead easy to a selection of too high values that would overload the other end. Also the congestion control part seems rather complex for a point-to-point connection. I understand that the proposed mechanism was experimented with and showed improvements in case of overload of the internal switch. However, congestion control usually also aims to fully utilise the available resources which is not a goal here and therefore a simpler solution like a circuit breaker would probably be sufficient. Update: Even though the last review was meant to be an "early" it was only requested right before IETF LC. I understand that the feedback provided is therefore rather late in the process and therefore I don't think should block publication of the draft.