Subject: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:38:28 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Network Transport Circuit Breakers
        Author          : Godred Fairhurst
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-01.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2015-03-31

Abstract:
   This document explains what is meant by the term "network transport
   circuit breaker" (CB).  It describes the need for circuit breakers
   when using network tunnels, and other non-congestion controlled
   applications.  It also defines requirements for building a circuit
   breaker and the expected outcomes of using a circuit breaker within
   the Internet.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:45:45 +0100

I just submitted a new revision of the draft incorporating the feedback I
received at Dallas and some tidy-up. I think this is ready for a WGLC.

I'm still keen to add more, particularly if people know of references to
other circuit breaker mechanisms.

Best wishes

Gorry
(as document editor)

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:50:59 -0700

Why is this draft "standards track"? This strikes me as informational.

In particular, are they circuit-breaking devices deployed or contemplated that the
authors feel would be out of compliance should this be adopted and would therefore be deprecated (or preferably deactivated)?

My sense from the presentations was that the draft sought to standardize terminology and improve our ability to talk about circuit breaker functionality, rather than to attempt to prescribe what these middle-boxes actually do. (Not  that middle-boxes are all that great with compliance to begin with).