Skip to main content

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 05)
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
I-D last updated 2023-12-19
Completed reviews Tsvart Early review of -02 by David L. Black (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 05)
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.