Early Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02
review-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02-tsvart-early-black-2023-12-19-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 02 (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-02-01 | |
| Requested | 2023-12-18 | |
| Requested by | Ronald in 't Velt | |
| Authors | David Wiggins , Lou Berger , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-12-19 | |
| Completed reviews |
Tsvart Early review of -02
by David L. Black
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by He Jia (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Valery Smyslov (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Susan Hares (diff) |
|
| Comments |
This Internet-Draft is part of a cluster of four that specify credit-based flow control extensions to the DLEP (RFC 8175) router-modem protocol. TSVART Early Review for the other three drafts (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-) was requested in October 2021. The assigned reviewer was David Black. He did a thorough job and provided good comments, some of which remain to be resolved. After a considerable hiatus, author(s) and document shepherd aim to finally address these. In addition, we humbly request this fourth document to be subjected to TSVART Early Review, preferably assigned to the same reviewer. One issue raised as part of the earlier review was, that the split into three (now four) documents resulted in one very short document, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-, which basically just defines a single DLEP Extension Type value. Merging of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension- and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification- was suggested. The current document, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-, specifies an alternate credit window mechanism (and Extension Type) to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-, based on IEEE 802.1Q tags instead of DiffServ CodePoints. It is just as short as its DSCP-based counterpart. The WG's rationale for keeping the document division the way it is, can be found in the shepherd write-ups for each of the three earlier I-Ds, e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension/shepherdwriteup/, in the answers to question 2. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | David L. Black |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/Sm-BR3R4_min252UBUKxvPKFV0c | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | On the right track | |
| Completed | 2023-12-19 |
review-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02-tsvart-early-black-2023-12-19-00
This review is effectively an extension of aprior TSVART review of earlier versions of three related DLRP drafts to include a fourth DLEP draft. That prior TSVART review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/JOflH810WxMl8U5tXnVVTOCwgLE/) covered: DLEP Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-09 DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-12 DLEP Traffic Classification Data Item draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-06 The additional fourth draft that is the subject of this review is: DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-02 This ether-credit-extension draft has strong similarities to the da-credit-extension draft, so the prior review comments applicable to the da-credit-extension draft should also be applied to this ether-credit-extension draft. Most of the prior review comments were on the credit-flow-control and traffic-classification drafts, although there are a few that apply to the credit-extension drafts, e.g., the security concern for which a resolution was discussed on the mailing list. The review request specifically mentioned the number of documents concern raised by the prior review. It is clear from the shepherd writeups for the previously reviewed drafts that the WG has discussed whether to merge drafts and has decided not to merge any of them, beyond which the addition of this fourth draft weakens the rationale for merging. That seems reasonable - this reviewer will nowdefer to the judgement of the WG and the responsible ADs on the number of drafts that are appropriate.