Subject: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 01:24:07 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-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-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation/

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

Below is Sue Hares' OPS DIR review. I would like to DISCUSS some points. I'm of
two minds. On one side, I read:

       The scope of this memo is limited to these three areas of
       experimentation.  This memo expresses no view on the likely outcomes
       of the proposed experiments and does not specify the experiments in
       detail.  Additional experiments in these areas are possible, e.g., on
       use of ECN to support deployment of a protocol similar to DCTCP
       [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp] beyond DCTCP's current applicability that is
       limited to data center environments.  The purpose of this memo is to
       remove constraints in standards track RFCs that stand in the way of
       these areas of experimentation.

On the other side:

   An Experimental RFC MUST be published for any protocol
   or mechanism that takes advantage of any of these enabling updates.

Btw, the MUST is just plain wrong, as Ben mentioned.
So, if you go in the direction of providing requirements for the experiments
(as opposed to just removing the specification constraints), then I agree with
Sue. The document title goes in the direction: if it would say something such
as "Removing constraints to the ECN experimentation", that would be a different
story.

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Issues

This is an OPS-DIR Review which focus the work on issues in deployed technology
based on this RFC.

Summary: Has issues as guide to experimental RFC .  To me these operational
issues General comment: Thank you david for addressing this Area.  Better ECN
control is critical to many portions of the network.
                                   My comments on this draft are because I
                                   really hope you can do quality experiments.

How this might be resolved: if there is a operational guidelines section (or
separate document), that covered: a) how to set-up and determine if a ECT(1)
experiment success or fails b) how to manage your ECT(1) experiment in your
network. c) how to manage and detect if your ECT experiment is running into
problems with other IETF technology (TRILL, MPLS VPNs, IPVPNs, BIER and NV03
technology). d) Recommending a monitoring structure (e.g. yang modules,
netconf/restconf and monitoring tools0

Major issues:

#1 There is nothing in this document which provide guidelines to the authors of
experimental RFCs based in this draft on specific ways to
    monitor the ECN experiments, report the ECN experimental data, or disable
    the experimental data.   If the success or failure of an experiment is
    based on "popular vote" determined by deployment, then say state this
    point.  I personally would object to that
   because you cannot tell if a limited experiment in a specific location (E.g.
   a data center) might be successful in another location.

  If the success or failure of an experimental RFC is based on a specific set
  of criteria for ECN, then it would be good to give an operational suggestion
  on how to: a) design an experiment, b) run an experiment and collect data,
  and c) report ths
 data in order to standardize the ECN experiments using ECT(1).

 page 10 section 4.2 last 2 paragraphs in sentence, hinted that you have an
 experiment in mind without specifying the experiment's success or failure
 criteria other than popular vote.  Is this true?  if it is, this is
 problematic.  If I misunderstood your text, then please
have someone re-read the text.

I have read lots of papers on ECN.

2) No discussion was given on how the TCP layer experimentation would impact
routing layer handdlng of ECN.

For example, the trill WG has the draft draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support.
Automated tunnel set-up for MPLS VPNS or IP VPNS may look at the ECN ECT(0)  or
ECT(1).  TRILL's ECN supports the layer-2 within the data centers.  Some IP
VPNS or MPLS VPNS may be needed for the data-center to business site
 or data-center backup traffic.

 As written, this draft allows loosening of the RFC3168 draft but does not
 provide guidelines  for network interaction.

3)  Some networks also use the diff-service markings to guide traffic in the
network.
    This document does not suggest an operational check list on how to design
    an experiment that supports or does not support these markings.

4) Modern operational IETF protocols and data modules for automating the
tracking of these experiments should be suggests

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

And again, I can only agree with Sue's comment below, as stressed by Ekr and Ben also.
However, this point was answered by Spencer and Mirja, so let's move on.

Editorial:
Some reviews have hinted that the text is repeats several sets of language.
People have found this lacked clarity.  One wonders why the authors did not
simply provide a set of bis documents for RFC3168, RFC6679, RFC 4341, RFC4342,
and RFC5622 if it is just updating the language in the specifications.

This document tries to be both revision of the specifications and the
architectural guidelines for experiments.  The dual nature does not lead to
clarity on either subject.

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:23:51 +0000

Quick comment on the Discuss topic from vacation - this is a "removing constraints" draft - it is not intended to provide guidelines on how to design, run and/or evaluate ECN experiments. Those guidelines will almost certainly vary by experiment, and hence are (IMHO) better directly addressed in the context of each experiment. The limited guidelines here are intended to provide some basic boundaries that all experiments must respect in order to avoid potentially serious congestion control consequences. The IESG will have the opportunity to evaluate each experiment in turn when its draft is (or drafts are) evaluated for publication as Experimental RFCs.

I'll comment on the rest of Sue's helpful review when I'm back from vacation, in about a week or so.

Thanks, --David ... Sent from my Android not-so-smartphone.

-------- Original message --------
From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: 9/28/17 9:24 AM (GMT+00:00)
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On the other side:

Reviewer: Susan Hares

Major issues:

Editorial:

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:02:28 -0400

David:

Have a great vacation.   I'll be glad to chat with you when you get back. 

Thank you for letting me know it is a "removing constraints" draft.
Perhaps there are a few principles for operations that could be suggested in
this draft.   I think you could improve the success of your experiments by
providing a templates for the "operational" issues.  

Cheerily,  Sue Hares 

From: Black, David [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 5:24 AM
To: Benoit Claise; The IESG
Cc: Black, David; [email-masked]; Gorry
Fairhurst; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Quick comment on the Discuss topic from vacation - this is a "removing
constraints" draft - it is not intended to provide guidelines on how to
design, run and/or evaluate ECN experiments. Those guidelines will almost
certainly vary by experiment, and hence are (IMHO) better directly addressed
in the context of each experiment. The limited guidelines here are intended
to provide some basic boundaries that all experiments must respect in order
to avoid potentially serious congestion control consequences. The IESG will
have the opportunity to evaluate each experiment in turn when its draft is
(or drafts are) evaluated for publication as Experimental RFCs. 

I'll comment on the rest of Sue's helpful review when I'm back from
vacation, in about a week or so. 

 

-------- Original message --------

Cc: [email-masked], Gorry Fairhurst
<[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked], [email-masked] 

Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT) 

Below is Sue Hares' OPS DIR review. I would like to DISCUSS some points. I'm
of
two minds. On one side, I read:

On the other side:

Btw, the MUST is just plain wrong, as Ben mentioned.
So, if you go in the direction of providing requirements for the experiments
(as opposed to just removing the specification constraints), then I agree
with
Sue. The document title goes in the direction: if it would say something
such
as "Removing constraints to the ECN experimentation", that would be a
different
story.

Reviewer: Susan Hares

This is an OPS-DIR Review which focus the work on issues in deployed
technology
based on this RFC.

Summary: Has issues as guide to experimental RFC .  To me these operational
issues General comment: Thank you david for addressing this Area.  Better
ECN
control is critical to many portions of the network.
                                   My comments on this draft are because I
                                   really hope you can do quality
experiments.

Major issues:

#1 There is nothing in this document which provide guidelines to the authors
of
experimental RFCs based in this draft on specific ways to
    monitor the ECN experiments, report the ECN experimental data, or
disable
    the experimental data.   If the success or failure of an experiment is
    based on "popular vote" determined by deployment, then say state this
    point.  I personally would object to that
   because you cannot tell if a limited experiment in a specific location
(E.g.
   a data center) might be successful in another location.

  If the success or failure of an experimental RFC is based on a specific
set
  of criteria for ECN, then it would be good to give an operational
suggestion
  on how to: a) design an experiment, b) run an experiment and collect data,
  and c) report ths
 data in order to standardize the ECN experiments using ECT(1).

Automated tunnel set-up for MPLS VPNS or IP VPNS may look at the ECN ECT(0)
or

3)  Some networks also use the diff-service markings to guide traffic in the
network.
    This document does not suggest an operational check list on how to
design
    an experiment that supports or does not support these markings.

And again, I can only agree with Sue's comment below, as stressed by Ekr and
Ben also.
However, this point was answered by Spencer and Mirja, so let's move on.

Editorial:
Some reviews have hinted that the text is repeats several sets of language.
People have found this lacked clarity.  One wonders why the authors did not
simply provide a set of bis documents for RFC3168, RFC6679, RFC 4341,
RFC4342,
and RFC5622 if it is just updating the language in the specifications.