Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:34:06 +0000

James: thank you very much for the review! And authors thanks for having addressed James’ comments.
I have balloted DISCUSS to fix what I believe are inconsistencies in the examples encoding, and a requirement that shouldn’t be there.

Francesca

From: art <[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, 17 January 2022 at 15:39
To: James <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19
Re-,

Thank you for the follow-up.

Please see below for the comment about pipes.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : James <[email-masked]>
> Envoyé : lundi 17 janvier 2022 15:19
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email-masked]>
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-dots-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19
>
> Thanks for the changes. A few comments also inline.
>
> - J
>
> > On 17 Jan 2022, at 11:06, <[email-masked]>
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : James Gruessing via Datatracker <[email-masked]> Envoyé :
> >> samedi 15 janvier 2022 19:50 À : [email-masked] Cc : [email-masked];
> >> [email-masked]; last- [email-masked] Objet :
> >> Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19
> >>
> >> Reviewer: James Gruessing
> >> Review result: Ready with Nits
> >>
> >> This is my review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19 as requested by
> >> ARTART chairs.
> >>
> >> Overall this is a well written document that explains its purpose,
> >> rationale, and technical details for someone like myself with no
> >> previous knowledge of DOTS or its underlying dependent protocols. As
> >> such my focus in this review has been looking at the readability of
> >> the document through the eyes of a future implementer.
> >
> > [Med] Thanks.
> >
> >>
> >> Comments:
> >>
> >> 3.2 - At a few points in this section, the concept of "measurements
> >> should be taken when traffic is 'normal'" is repeated a few times and
> >> done in a way not as clear as it could be. The authors should
> >> consider editing this section to be more concise and avoid
> repetition.
> >
> > [Med] Found and fixed one sentence that I think is redundant. Not sure
> if you have identified others.
>
> [James] I haven't identified anything else specific, however your change
> is a good improvement.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 3.3 - Perhaps a clear definition for the word "pipe" belongs in the
> >> terminology section? Although it may appear obvious as to what it
> >> means, it is jargon that is not used in RFC 9132 nor 9133. Consider
> >> that a client split with multiple interfaces/networks/DOTS domains
> >> etc may affect interpretation of the word, and thus the potential
> >> value it should calculate and send.
> >
> > [Med] Sure. Added a new entry to Section 2.
>
> [James] Thank you, that's clearer. As an aside to this definition,
> around 6.2 and later I cannot find any text that covers clients not
> sending a pipe capacity figure greater than actual* available capacity -
> in a simple example, a client with 1Gbit probably shouldn't announce
> 10Gbit. Did I miss it, or is that something to consider?
>

[Med] What is advertised is not necessarily a local interface of the client, but the "pipe" of the client **domain**. Think about cases where the DOTS client is not embedded in a router. We don't include checks against signaled pipe information because how a client retrieves ( or is provided with) the information to signal is deployment-specific.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art