Re: Fwd: RE: Fwd: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289<draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

At 07:45 PM 8/29/2002 -0400, Kwok Ho Chan wrote:
>Fred:
>Are you referring to the attached E-Mail?

yes. I would like all comments edited into the new document to have at 
least been seen by the working group. I don't think we'll get a lot of 
commentary, but people should have the opportunity.

>-- Kwok --
>
>>From: "Andrew Smith" <[email protected]>
>>To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]>, "Fred Baker" 
>><[email protected]>,
>>    "Chan, Kwok-Ho [BL60:470:EXCH]"<[email protected]>
>>Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>>    "Dan Grossman" <[email protected]>
>>Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 
>>3289<draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:20:51 -0700
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>>Importance: Normal
>>X-SMTP-HELO: falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net
>>X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: [email protected]
>>X-SMTP-RCPT-TO: [email protected]
>>X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]
>>
>>I just found out about the "48 hours" today: most of these comments are
>>probably (way) too late but there are some editorial things buried in here
>>that might be helpful at this late stage:
>>
>>Please change my contact info:
>>         OLD:
>>
>>                                                        A. Smith
>>                                                        Allegro Networks
>>         NEW:
>>                                                        A. Smith
>>                                                        Harbour Networks
>>
>>11. Authors' Addresses
>>
>>OLD:
>>    Andrew Smith
>>    Allegro Networks
>>    6399 San Ignacio Ave
>>    San Jose, CA 95119
>>
>>    EMail: [email protected]
>>  NEW:
>>    Andrew Smith
>>    Harbour Networks
>>    Jiuling Building
>>    21 North Xisanhuan Ave.
>>    Beijing, 100089, PRC
>>
>>    EMail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>3.5.3.  diffServMinRateTable - The Minimum Rate Table: The description (both
>>here and in the comments in the MIB module and in the DESCRIPTION clauses)
>>is unclear on when the Rate and when the Priority parameters are to be used
>>and what is their combined effect:
>>
>>    "When the output rate of a queue or scheduler must be given a minimum
>>    rate or a priority, this is done using the diffServMinRateTable.
>>    Rates may be expressed as absolute rates, or as a fraction of
>>    ifSpeed, and imply the use of a rate-based scheduler such as WFQ or
>>    WRR.  The use of a priority implies the use of a Priority Scheduler.
>>    Only one of the Absolute or Relative rates needs to be set; the other
>>    takes the relevant value as a result.  Excess capacity is distributed
>>    proportionally among the inputs to a scheduler using the assured
>>    rate.  More complex functionality may be described by augmenting this
>>    MIB."
>>
>>I thought that the type of scheduler was implied by diffServSchedulerMethod,
>>not by "use of a priority".  And if you're doing strict priority scheduling,
>>neither of Absolute or Relative rates needs to be set, right? Text above
>>seems to imply otherwise. See also below.
>>
>>3.5.5 There's no reference to figure 4. Perhaps it should be from the
>>paragraph at the bottom of p18?
>>
>>3.5.5 Is there a way to keep this set of diagrams closer to (in-line with)
>>the text describing them, or at least, on the same page? I know it wastes
>>paper/bytes but would add to clarity.
>>
>>3.5.5 I find some of this relatively new text confusing (this is the first
>>time I've seen it so tell me if I'm too late with the following comments).
>>Specifically:
>>
>>    "For representing a Strict Priority scheduler, each scheduler input is
>>    assigned a priority with respect to all the other inputs feeding the
>>    same scheduler, with default values for the other parameters.
>>    Higher-priority traffic that is not being delayed for shaping will be
>>    serviced before a lower-priority input.  An example is found in
>>    Figure 2."
>>
>>Clearer (or, at least, more accurate) is:
>>
>>    "For representing a Strict Priority scheduler, the
>>diffServSchedulerMethod is set to diffServSchedulerPriority and the
>>prededing queue or scheduler feeding this scheduler input is assigned a
>>priority in its associated diffServMinRateEntry with respect to all the
>>other inputs feeding the same scheduler (the value of the other parameters
>>in this entry are irrelevant). Traffic from higher-priority inputs to this
>>scheduler will be serviced before that from lower-priority inputs. An
>>example is found in Figure 2."
>>
>>Figures 3, 4 and 5: suggest you use more specific labels in some of the
>>boxes to remove confusion:
>>- figure 3, replace "Rate" with "MaxRate" in each box;
>>- figure 4, put something in the empty boxes e.g. "n/a" or leave them out.
>>Replace "Shaping Rate" with "MaxRate" - we have no parameter called shaping
>>rate.
>>
>>3.5.5: suggest you lose the NOTE and its text, just above figure 4, or at
>>least join it up with the following paragraph.
>>
>>3.5.5: last paragraph should be part of 3.6 really. And glue Figure 6 to
>>this paragraph for clarity.
>>
>>3.6: change "four AF classes" to "four AF classes, each with 3 levels of
>>drop precedence or 'colours'". We must be clear that this is just an example
>>of an AF implementation that chooses to do 4 classes, each with 3 colours.
>>
>>3.6: Suggest you use the same example scenario for figures 6 and 7 - it's
>>confusing to use different example scenarios. Figure 7 introduces a new kind
>>of "hybrid" notation for the first time (we've always gone left-to-right
>>before, not top-to-bottom - I preferred the former for clarity): I suggest
>>it needs some words to explain the notation (rhetorical questions: what do
>>the lines imply when they don't have arrowheads? what are the 2 or 3
>>different lines exiting from the meters? These are all deducible from the
>>following text but it's made harder work due to the new notation. BTW,
>>there's an arrow missing out of the back/bottom/right Action box.
>>
>>3.6: suggest you add the "everything else" case that you discuss in the text
>>to figure 7.
>>
>>3.6.: there's no reference to figure 7 in the text.
>>
>>3.6 and 3.7: actually, I'm not sure why these sections are here in this
>>document - a few years ago, we took out similar "tutorial" material and put
>>it in the Model draft. There's nothing in these sections that is specific to
>>the MIB. The right thing to have in this document is the "translation" of an
>>example like this into the structures and linkages used by the MIB but these
>>sections do not help with this. We had such material in draft-09 and it has
>>disappeared (I'm not saying 3.6 and 3.7 aren't useful material but it just
>>does not belong in this document) - I think this is a backward step.
>>
>>Anyhow, I'm probably too late to the party with most of these comments - I
>>should have reviewed it when the IESG last call was in progress (I didn't
>>realise so much had changed since -09 which was the last version that I
>>reviewed properly).
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:56 AM
>>To: Fred Baker
>>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Andrew Smith;
>>Kwok Ho Chan
>>Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC
>>3289<draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>>
>>
>>OK, in view of Kwok's response we can give it another day or say, but
>>then...
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>>Fred Baker wrote:
>> >
>> > You may need to make an executive decision here. Andrew and Kwok are AWOL.
>> >
>> > >Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:50:58 GMT
>> > >To: [email protected], [email protected]
>> > >Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289
>> > >   <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>> > >Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>> > >         [email protected], [email protected]
>> > >From: [email protected]
>> > >X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>> > >
>> > >Kwok Ho and Andrew,
>> > >
>> > >We still have not heard from you regarding this document.  Please let
>> > >us know if there are any corrections required.
>> > >
>> > >We are waiting to hear from you.
>> > >
>> > >RFC Editor
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >----- Begin Included Message -----
>> > >
>> > > >From [email protected]  Thu May 23 16:22:59 2002
>> > >Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:22:45 GMT
>> > >To: [email protected], [email protected]
>> > >Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289
>> > >   <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>> > >Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
>>[email protected],
>> > >    [email protected], [email protected]
>> > >From: [email protected]
>> > >X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>> > >X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
>> > >Content-Length: 3636
>> > >
>> > >Kwok Ho and Andrew,
>> > >
>> > >Please let us know if the document is ready to be published.
>> > >
>> > >We are awaiting your reply.
>> > >
>> > >Thank you.
>> > >
>> > >RFC Editor
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > From [email protected]  Tue May 21 09:25:15 2002
>> > > > Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:24:54 GMT
>> > > > To: [email protected], [email protected]
>> > > > Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289
>> > > >   <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>> > > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
>>[email protected],
>> > > >    [email protected], [email protected]
>> > > > From: [email protected]
>> > > > X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>> > > > X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
>> > > > Content-Length: 2866
>> > > >
>> > > > Authors,
>> > > >
>> > > > We have not heard any further from you regarding this document.  We
>> > > > would appreciate a confirmation that the document is ready to be
>> > > > published as it now appears at:
>> > > >
>> > > >    ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/authors/rfc3289.txt
>> > > >
>> > > > We will wait to hear from you before continuing on.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you.
>> > > >
>> > > > RFC Editor
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > From [email protected]  Mon May 13 11:51:19 2002
>> > > > > Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:50:53 GMT
>> > > > > To: [email protected], [email protected]
>> > > > > Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289
>> > > > >   <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>> > > > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
>> > > [email protected],
>> > > > >    [email protected], [email protected]
>> > > > > From: [email protected]
>> > > > > X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>> > > > > X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
>> > > > > Content-Length: 1984
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Fred,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  It now parses
>> > > > > successfully.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We have updated your contact information in the authors address
>> > > > > section, as well as within the mib.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Please let us know if there are any further corrections required.
>>We
>> > > > > will wait to hear from you.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > RFC editor
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > From [email protected]  Fri May 10 01:03:56 2002
>> > > > > > X-Sender: [email protected]
>> > > > > > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>> > > > > > Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:03:24 +0800
>> > > > > > To: [email protected]
>> > > > > > From: Fred Baker <[email protected]>
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 3289
>> > > > > >   <draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>> > > > > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
>> > > > > >    [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>> > > > > >    [email protected]
>> > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0
>> > > > > > X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > At 10:37 PM 5/9/2002 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > > > >FYI:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >W: f(rfc3289.mi2), (42,1) Textual convention "Dscp" defined but
>> > > not used
>> > > > > > >W: f(rfc3289.mi2), (52,1) Textual convention "DscpOrAny" defined
>>but
>> > > > > > >not used
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > these two warnings come up because the TCs are in a separate MIB
>> > > Module
>> > > > > > from the main mib, and are imported into it. They are fine.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > My contact information has changed slightly; I have a new physical
>> > > address.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>>/=====================================================================/
>> > > > > >   |     Fred Baker                 |        1121 Via Del Rey
>>|
>> > > > > >   |     Cisco Fellow               |        Santa Barbara,
>>California |
>> > > > > >   +--------------------------------+        93117 USA
>>|
>> > > > > >   | Nothing will ever be attempted,| phone: +1-805-681-0115
>>|
>> > > > > >   | if all possible objections must| fax:   +1-413-473-2403
>>|
>> > > > > >   | be first overcome.             |
>>|
>> > > > > >   |     Dr. Johnson, Rasselas, 1759|
>>|
>> > > > > >
>>/=====================================================================/
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >----- End Included Message -----
>

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html