Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support-08
review-ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support-08-tsvart-early-bonaventure-2021-11-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2021-11-19
Requested 2021-02-25
Requested by Wesley Eddy
Authors Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Bob Briscoe , Yizhou Li , Andrew G. Malis , Xinpeng Wei
Draft last updated 2021-11-19
Completed reviews Tsvart Early review of -08 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Comments
Ideally this could have a TSVART review in conjunction with the SFC WGLC.
Assignment Reviewer Olivier Bonaventure
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support-08-tsvart-early-bonaventure-2021-11-19
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/eIifhiyHjK_Fm4ls1w8LYSC9GGk
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2021-11-19
review-ietf-sfc-nsh-ecn-support-08-tsvart-early-bonaventure-2021-11-19-00
I read the draft as part of the tav-area review team and found some parts that
are unclear and should be clarified before publication.

I have one technical concern regarding the tunnelEcnCEMarkedRatio information
element. This IE is defined as "The ratio of CE-marked packets at the
Observation Point".

This definition is unclear. It does not indicate the period over which the
ratio has been computed. This looks critical if the ingress plans to use the
ratio to adjust its rate or provide ECN feedback upstream. All other IEs refer
to the initialization of the metering processes the start of the period. My
impression is that there are two possibilities:
 - clearly specify the period for the computation of tunnelEcnCEMarkedRatio,
 but different deployments will probably need different periods
- let the ingress compute the tunnelEcnCEMarkedRatio from the other IEs that it
received and remove the tunnelEcnCEMarkedRatio IE that would then be redundant

Editorial comments

1. Introduction

What does an interior SFC node need to implement ECN ? If this similar to the
requirements for routers or do they need to do something special ?

1.2 ECN Background

Why do you indicate RFC3168 as an example solution to carry ECN information
while this is a standards track document ?

3.1

You mention non-IP protocols that support similar services as ECN. Could you
refer to one as an example ?

4.1

Third paragraph, last sentence "not affectED by packet drop"

5. Example of Use

I have difficulties to understand the examples.

In figure 9, a message is an IPFIX message, am I right ? Does the figure
indicate that IPFIX messages will be sent very frequently ? How often should
they be sent ?

Figure 10, why putting egress on the left and ingress on the right ?
I cannot figure what A1, B2 etc really mean and don't understand this figure
and the associated text.