Subject: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-pals-congcons-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:59:07 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-congcons-01: Yes

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-congcons/

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

So, very nice. I have one request for you to consider.

In this text:

   The figures presented above demonstrate that TDM service quality
   degradation generally occurs before the TDM PW would consume more
   bandwidth that a comparable TCP flow.  Thus while TDM PWs are unable
   to respond to congestion in a TCP-like manner, TDM PWs that are able
   to deliver acceptable TDM service do not contribute to congestion
   significantly more than a TCP flow.  Combined with our earlier
   conclusion that Ethernet PWs respond in TCP-like fashion, leads to
   our final conclusion that no PW-specific congestion-avoidance
   mechanisms are required.

I can't tell whether or not you're saying that a TPM PW only needs a
circuit breaker as an absolute last resort, or it doesn't need a circuit
breaker, or something else. If you could finish the last sentence with a
word about that, I think it would be helpful.

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:56:15 +0000

Spencer,

Sounds a reasonable request.

With the one proviso that we should use the term "mechanism to protect 
other traffic, e.g. circuit breaker in the last resort".

...given I have been arguing that there will nearly always be better 
mechanisms (and no less complex) that a CB, which destroys and f***'s-up 
as much as it protects.

Bob

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/