Subject: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:41:23 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05: No Objection

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-pals-vccv-for-gal/

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

A minor question ... I was somewhat surprised to see this statement.

1.  Introduction

   o  Some operators are concerned that the inclusion of the PW CW will
      increase the PW packet size.
      
It seems like the working group would know whether that's true (so,
something like "The increase in PW packet size due to the inclusion of
the PW CW will cause problems X, Y, and Z"), or it's not. 

Is it true? If so, the issue isn't that operators believe there's a
problem, but that there's really a problem.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:52:52 -0400

Spencer,

I think that text dates back to before we saw widespread deployment of the
control word. At that time, it is true that some concerns had been
expressed. Since then, no particular problems have (to my knowledge)
actually been encountered in the field.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:50:20 +0100

On 15/09/2015 22:41, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> .
The origin of this size issue is very small packets (for example ATM cells)
over very slow bandwidth links (for example low bandwidth satellites).

Remember that the PWE3 OAM has to work for all PW types over all
link types, including the edge links.

The statement is precisely correct, and whilst we could add some text
I am not sure whether it would add value or whether the amount of
text needed would unnecessarily enlarge the introduction, particularly
since that would then lead to an need to expand the earlier more important
reasons.

- Stewart

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:17:23 -0500

Hi, Stewart and Andy,

> since that would then lead to an need to expand the earlier more important

Thanks for the speedy responses.

I'll plead guilty to seeing way too much news reporting that starts out
"some people believe ..." in recent months, followed by absolute fantasy
(and don't get me started by asking for examples!).

If the problem really is that some operators have this concern, whether
it's justified or not, then you're doing the right thing by saying so.

Spencer