Subject: [tsvwg] New draft needs readers

From: Zhulei <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:38:23 +0000

Hi folks,

I would be seeing some of your reading 00-version draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-exposure-00.

This problem statement mentions the ingress of a tunnel protocol would be good to read congestion feedback from egress of tunnel if ingress has policy, flow control, admission control behavior.

We assumed a possible standard proposal in this draft if we recognize this, on the other hand marking problem is our issue may alternatively use PCN extensions.

Best regards,
Zhu Lei
Huawei
Wireless network research department
E-mail address: [email-masked]
Phone: +86-10-60611961
Mobile: +86-13910157020

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:21:40 +0100

Hi,

I have read your draft, and the idea of "identifying congestion in a tunnel
segment of an end-to-end flow" seems interesting to me. Tunneling is
something that is getting more and more used in different scenarios, as the
ones you cite (VPNs, IPv6 over IPv4, etc.). I think it will become even more
important.

I have these comments in order to improve the draft:

- Abstract: I do not understand what do you mean with this sentence "Because
of the particularity of the scenario of the tunnel, the existing E2E traffic
management mechanism cannot be directly be deployed". Perhaps you could
explain it in two or three sentences.

- Introduction, 3rd paragraph: The sentence " the amount of tunnel
congestions is fed back to the ingress of the tunnel" could say "the tunnel
congestion status is fed back to the ingress of the tunnel".

- In 2.1. you could perhaps write the meaning of ECT and ECN, the first time
they appear in the draft.

- Regarding the structure of the draft, in 1.1. you say " The main section
in this document is the basic model described in chapter 4. A". Perhaps
chapter 4 is too late for the main section. I don't know, but perhaps you
could put it first in order to better understand everything.

- Page 9: I do not understand the sentence " The module records the outer
header CE codepoint packets reaches the egress independently, and MAY need
to estimate the congestion level inside the tunnel." There is something
missing, I think.

- Page 9: "Figure 3 demonstrates the general process" could say "Figure 3
shows/details the general process"

- Page 11, beginning: "where the users locate" should say "where the users
are located"

- Page 11, there is something missing in the sentence " The two PEs are the
powerful nodes that acting as the entry and egress of the tunnel, receiving
and sending back the congestion information."

Best regards,

Jose Saldana
_____________________

De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de
Zhulei
Enviado el: martes, 23 de octubre de 2012 10:38
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: [tsvwg] New draft needs readers

Hi folks,

I would be seeing some of your reading 00-version draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-tsvwg-tunnel-congestion-exposure-00. 

This problem statement mentions the ingress of a tunnel protocol would be
good to read congestion feedback from egress of tunnel if ingress has
policy, flow control, admission control behavior. 

We assumed a possible standard proposal in this draft if we recognize this,
on the other hand marking problem is our issue may alternatively use PCN
extensions.

Best regards,
Zhu Lei
Huawei