Hi David,
This will be good.
Thanks
Roni
From: Black, David [mailto:david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 5:26 PM
To: Roni Even;
draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11
Hi Roni,
Looks like this was missed - sorry for the absence of a response.
WRT section 6.3.2 (now section 5.3.2) "persistently fails to deliver
acceptable TDM service" is discussed in significant detail in Appendix A of
the referenced [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] - it turns out to be a much longer
discussion by comparison to section 6.3.1 (now section 5.3.1) that involves
references to ITU-T G.826 and G.875. I'd prefer not to reproduce or try to
summarize that discussion in the tsvwg-circuit-breaker draft, but a sentence
could be added to the end of that section to point the reader in the right
direction, e.g.: "See Appendix A of [ID-ietf-pals-congcons] for further
discussion."
Thanks, --David
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 1:43 PM
To: draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker-11
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2016-2-8
IETF LC End Date: 2016-2-9
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a BCP RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 6.3.2 the proposal is "For that reason, the draft suggests that a
managed circuit breaker that shuts down a PW when it persistently fails to
deliver acceptable TDM service is a useful means for addressing these
congestion concerns." I accepted to see some definition of "persistently
fails" at least similar to section 6.3.1.
Nits/editorial comments: