Subject: [manet] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:39:43 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This work item does not appear to be inside the scope of the MANET charter, at
least based on my reading of the charter. Am I missing something?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support the DISCUSS positions of Warren and Magnus.

I'm unclear on why this specification is necessary, i.e. why the use of
existing transport protocols and processing of DSCPs do not suffice to achieve
what this specification is aiming to achieve. Is that explained in another
document somewhere?

= Section 1 =

"Various flow control methods are possible, e.g.,
   see [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]."

The referenced document does not specify a flow control method. Maybe
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control is what was intended?

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 13:36:34 -0700

On April 10, 2019 at 3:39:44 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Alissa:

Hi!

This work item does not appear to be inside the scope of the MANET charter,
at
least based on my reading of the charter. Am I missing something?

It is not explicitly called out.  However, I believe it is part of the
general development of DLEP, for which the WG is responsible.

Alvaro.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:16 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension/

I presume this is for the AD (or chairs) to respond to.

DLEP flow control is an alternative to existing flow control mechanisms 
such as exists for PPPOE and ethernet (PAUSE and PFC). It has the 
advantage of being able to pause traffic on a per destination and/or 
DSCP basis.

I'll add the above to the document intro.

> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control is what was intended?

Added as a second reference.

Thanks,

Lou

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:06:47 -0400

Hi Alvaro,

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On April 10, 2019 at 3:39:44 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker ([email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>) wrote:
> 
> Alissa:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> It is not explicitly called out.  However, I believe it is part of the general development of DLEP, for which the WG is responsible.

Is there any scope limitation to the functionality that could potentially be characterized as further "development of DLEP"? I ask because from a quick read of the base specification, it doesn’t look like pause/resume was contemplated, and as you note this was not explicitly called out in the charter whereas credit windowing was. I’m wondering what the boundary is around the functionality DLEP is expected to provide as a protocol.

Thanks,
Alissa

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 06:49:39 -0700

On April 11, 2019 at 9:06:50 AM, Alissa Cooper ([email-masked]) wrote:

Is there any scope limitation to the functionality that could potentially
be characterized as further "development of DLEP"? I ask because from a
quick read of the base specification, it doesn’t look like pause/resume was
contemplated, and as you note this was not explicitly called out in the
charter whereas credit windowing was. I’m wondering what the boundary is
around the functionality DLEP is expected to provide as a protocol.

In short, I believe the boundary is simply “whatever the users need”.

When we re-chartered (a couple of years ago), the WG thought that credit
windowing would be the focus (there was a document in progress, etc.), but
that has changed to include this extension, and others.  The community
working on DLEP is a very close-knit group with related (it not
significantly overlapping) users — the focus of the work then follows what
their users require.

At some point we should think about generalizing the charter.

Thanks!

Alvaro.