Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:26:28 +0000

Hi Roni,
Looks like this was missed - sorry for the absence of a response.
WRT section 6.3.2 (now section 5.3.2) "persistently fails to deliver acceptable TDM service" is discussed in significant detail in Appendix A of the referenced [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] - it turns out to be a much longer discussion by comparison to section 6.3.1 (now section 5.3.1) that involves references to ITU-T G.826 and G.875.  I'd prefer not to reproduce or try to summarize that discussion in the tsvwg-circuit-breaker draft, but a sentence could be added to the end of that section to point the reader in the right direction, e.g.: "See Appendix A of [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] for further discussion."
Thanks, --David

From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 1:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2016-2-8

IETF LC End Date: 2016-2-9

IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a BCP RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

In section 6.3.2 the proposal is "For that reason, the draft suggests that a managed circuit breaker that shuts down a PW when it persistently fails to deliver acceptable TDM service is a useful means for addressing these congestion concerns." I accepted to see some definition of "persistently fails" at least similar to section 6.3.1.

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 20:00:52 +0200

Hi David,

This will be good.

Thanks

Roni

From: Black, David [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 5:26 PM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11

Hi Roni,

WRT section 6.3.2 (now section 5.3.2) "persistently fails to deliver
acceptable TDM service" is discussed in significant detail in Appendix A of
the referenced [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] - it turns out to be a much longer
discussion by comparison to section 6.3.1 (now section 5.3.1) that involves
references to ITU-T G.826 and G.875.  I'd prefer not to reproduce or try to
summarize that discussion in the tsvwg-circuit-breaker draft, but a sentence
could be added to the end of that section to point the reader in the right
direction, e.g.: "See Appendix A of [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] for further
discussion."

Thanks, --David

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2016-2-8

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

In section 6.3.2 the proposal is "For that reason, the draft suggests that a
managed circuit breaker that shuts down a PW when it persistently fails to
deliver acceptable TDM service is a useful means for addressing these
congestion concerns." I accepted to see some definition of "persistently
fails" at least similar to section 6.3.1. 

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:06:02 +0000

> WRT section 6.3.2 (now section 5.3.2) “persistently fails to deliver acceptable TDM service” is discussed in significant detail in Appendix A of the referenced [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] - it turns out to be a much longer discussion by comparison to section 6.3.1 (now section 5.3.1) that involves references to ITU-T G.826 and G.875.  I’d prefer not to reproduce or try to summarize that discussion in the tsvwg-circuit-breaker draft, but a sentence could be added to the end of that section to point the reader in the right direction, e.g.: “See Appendix A of [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] for further discussion.”

Sounds reasonable to me as well. Thanks for the review & fix!

Jari